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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Midis would likely help clarify some issues, for those songs that have midi versions available. I have used Noteworthy Composer to look at time signatures before, and the interesting thing is that the midi-creators don't have to bother with figuring that out, because time signature is essentially optional (and a non-factor as far as the midis themselves are concerned). Speaking of which, "Weapons Factory" by Koji Kondo from the Super Mario RPG OSV is in 13/4 or 13/8 time (can't really tell the difference). Should things like this be added, or is video game music not "real" enough for this list? 74.32.238.243 ( talk) 21:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The above entry was removed due to: "No evidence of editorial oversight for this source." http://stereogum.com/about.html claims there is an editorial staff, which has won many awards: http://stereogum.com/press.html. Hyacinth ( talk) 06:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
"My Human Gets Me Blues" by Captain Beefheart is in 4/4 time, with a vocal break in the middle and a section of 6/4 at the end. The opinion of a music reviewer that a song has a "complex" time signature is not sufficient evidence for it to be considered as having a complex time signature. I move for deletion of that item. 99.28.69.88 ( talk) 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
What note fills a measure in 4/1 time?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The pieces in this list with 5 or 7 as top numbers are getting large and I would like to know if these are still rare enough time signatures for them to qualify for unusual. Georgia guy ( talk) 20:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
A list with dozens of members, 7/x, still seems really small compared to a list with at least millions of members, 4/x. Counting all the songs in 7/x or 4/x the songs in 7/x would make up less than one percent of the total. That doesn't seem too frequent. Hyacinth ( talk) 05:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Why, all of a sudden, after years of remaining there, should the notice be removed? Secondly, how is the notice only to editors? Hyacinth ( talk) 07:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The best I've been able to find in support of your position so far are essays, not policy: WP:RF and Wikipedia:Make articles useful for readers, neither of which explicitly support or oppose our stances. Hyacinth ( talk) 07:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
? This section only contains cited listings. ? That might be marginally better but you would have to remove all of the uncited items (which might remove useful things that really could be cited quite easily with 5 minutes of Googling). -- Jubilee♫ clipman 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Let's start Wikipedia:Instruction to editors. Hyacinth ( talk) 07:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This contains lots of nonsense, eg:
What is especially unusual about that? Why, indeed, does the header state "6/8"? That is is one of the most common times sigs used... Unusual for pop/rock perhaps but hardly a major revelation to the rest of us! -- Jubilee♫ clipman 06:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I searched these pages and could not find reference to Don Ellis. Although his most well known piece may have been "The French Connection," in 7/4, for the film by the same name, he wrote songs in many uncommon time signatures. He has an entry in Wikipedia, as do some of his works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.89.145 ( talk) 07:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.rosen-kranz.jp/d_7throse
The song that automatically plays in the background on that page is the one I mean. I'm pretty sure it's written in 15/4.
The band is
D, and the song is "7th Rose (Opening SE)". The website is of the company that the singer of the band owns. —
TafelAnatomie (
talk)
13:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
May be a good song to put in (wherever it fits). It bounces back and forth between several odd time signatures. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't find one for the song. I can find one for the album: a Rolling Stone review:
After a brief discussion with Jerome Kohl on his talk page, I have decided to call into question the sources used by this article. Since I enjoy the music of Pink Floyd, I decided to look up " Money" on this list. I was interested to see what the sources said about the apparent 7/4 time signature, so I followed them. I discovered that not only are those "two" sources the exact same one source but also that that source is a blog. However, the blog is run by members of the Music Genome Project ( [4]), and so might well be reliable enough for WP. Any way, this, among others, probably deals with matters as regards this particular song. WP:SOFIXIT, applies here, obviously. However, while I am happy to remove doubles and add additional refs for songs (including refs for "All You Need Is Love", whose sources on this page are also questionable, IMO), I am reluctant to remove sources without proper discussion of their merit/demerits on this page. I am going to fully review the policies/guidelines to remind/inform myself of the current consensus and thinking; then I will review this page's links to find out just how many doubles/questionables/ WP:BADCHARTS there are. I'll get back after that, though I will watch this page and respond to replies, of course, in the mean time. Help in tracking down the dodgy entries would be appreciated, of course! Cheers -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 01:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I just discovered that no piece by Conlon Nancarrow is listed here, even though his music is famous for being extremely unusual rhythmically. I thought about it and realized one issue--often his music is not in a "time signature" at all, so there's no section of this page where you'd put a given Nancarrow piece. But then, his music is not rhythmless and free. The "meter", if the word is stretched a bit, of his music is strictly defined, but often impossible to describe in time signature terms. Of particular note are his Studies for Player Piano, Study No. 33, "2 against the square root of 2" rhythm, Study No. 40, " e: pi" rhythm. Anyway, I suppose I can see why these pieces might be fit to list here, being basically "meterless". It still seemed weird to not see them listed when I first checked. Pfly ( talk) 08:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
What's the difference between 2+2+2+3 and 4+2+3?? 4 beats is always strong-weak-medium-weak, never strong-weak-weak-weak (without secondary stress on the middle "weak".) Georgia guy ( talk) 16:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there any rule about using 8/8 time?? I find it very natural to think that 4/4 time becomes 8/8 time if played at a slow enough tempo that you can easily feel 8 beats to a measure. However, a few Internet sites that talk about 8/8 time say that this is absolutely wrong and that 8/8 has to be grouped as 3+3+2 or 3+2+3 or 2+3+3. Anyone have a good experience with 8/8 time to be able to answer this question?? Georgia guy ( talk) 17:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to get into any wars here about the relative merits of one meter over another. But I was just searching the list of songs in 7 or partial-7 times and I thought of one, which maybe someone can find a source for: "Ring Out, Solstice Bells" by Jethro Tull. (from Songs from the Wood)
Perhaps the lyric of the verse (the part of the song played in 7) would suffice here as a source: "Seven maids move in seven time" and "Seven druids dance in seven time." Jtnet ( talk) 20:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Again, as above I would need help sourcing this -- I don't have access to sheet music -- but the intro and numerous "in-between" bits that echo the intro of "Siberian Khatru" by Yes (from Close to the Edge) are in 15/4, or alternatively in 8/4 + 7/4. Jtnet ( talk) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please verify the time signature in Zeppelin's Four Sticks. The article states 5/4 and 3/4 but the beats are clearly eighth note beats. The reference is to a book. Even the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Sticks states it uses /8 time signatures. Did not want to just edit because it references a source, not sure how to handle. Thanks for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpk0721 ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxgBde1dCLo
Mediaeval Baebes - Verbum Caro. Is this in 42/8? It seems so to my ear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.52.2 ( talk) 19:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, gotta say that kind of 'standard keeping' - noble though it is - is a bit rich when tunes like Go To Sleep and Say A Little Prayer are being included in some desperately vain attempt to provide some content. Anyone with a brain can tell that the former is 1 4/4, followed by 2 3/4s and the latter is 4/4, 3/4, 4/4. Although they may add upto their respective cited meters. anyone with an even remotely musical brain can tell that's just desperate barrel-scraping pedantry for the sake of having some content in this article that is threadbare PRECISELY because of the so-called 'standards' that you hold so dear. I'm citing a tune that IS in 42/8 - FACT and you're giving me crap about citations. I thought this was meant to be a community of knowledgeable individuals capable of making judgement calls of this nature themselves without having to plagiarise other people's web articles. Looks like I was wrong. I appreciate that you have to uphold a certain standard, but you're also not robots. Use your brains - and your EARS!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.52.2 ( talk) 11:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It is clearly agreed by music theorists that 6/4 time is always 1-2-3-4-5-6, not 1-2-3-4-5-6, which is 3/2 counted wrongly; it should be counted with 3 beats. However, regarding:
"Playing in the Band" by the Grateful Dead (notated as 4/4 + 4/4 + 2/4). (10/4)
This I'm sure is the same as 5/2 only with the quarter note as the beat. That is, it is 2+2+2+2+2, not 3+3+2+2 (in any order.) Anyone have enough experience to confirm general differences between x/2 and 2x/4 time signatures (with x larger than 2)?? Georgia guy ( talk) 15:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Do film scores count as well? Wendy Carlos's main "Theme from Tron" (original film) is in slow 7/8 (4+3/8). (last entry on her blog page) A sample can be heard on amazon.com... --- megA ( talk) 16:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
...is in 12/8 except for a single 10/8 bar on the penultimate line of every verse. (e. g. 1st verse on the text "I yearn to turn my face to the dawn". (It is, however, often simplified to 12/8 in "cheaper" arangements...) you can see the bar (bar 7) here on scribd... -- megA ( talk) 17:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in music theory -- can someone confirm that Rusty Cage is partly in 19/4 time? -- Doradus ( talk) 05:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm new to adding to Wikipedia. I tried to add a piece of music to this page, under the Partially in 2½/4 section, but it was deleted. I assume because there was no source. However, as I wrote the music in the first place, I know what the time signature is, and I know it is partially in 2½/4, wit a middle section in 4/4 time. I also put a link to the piece of music, so that anyone who wanted to could have a listen. Did I offend some other local cultural behaviour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingo master 17 ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I have not made many contributions to Wikipedia, but I was itching when I found some music that could be in 7/8 for the first 40 or so seconds. It is "I am the Doctor" of Series 5, composed in a 2+2+2+1 grouping. I also am wondering about Olafur Arnalds's works. The latter could just be uneven fermatas. It does have a 5/8-type section. 71.234.166.64 ( talk) 21:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The above song [by Gallows] is played partially in either 7/4 or alternating 4/4 and 3/4, which I feel makes it a valid candidate. I'm just suggesting entry, I'm not going to change anything in case I oughtn't. 75.73.139.144 ( talk) 21:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Distinctive unconventional time signature indeed. One listen makes it clear that this is in 4/4. Roch Parisien doesn't know what he's talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.214.213 ( talk) 18:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
>>> Anyone who can count and has a little musical training can tell what time sig a tune has. It's hardly "research" to declare this, you bunch of stuffed shirts!!! Maybe the reason you can't find any decent sources is because it's generally worth nobody else's time (but people trying to enrich this article and being hindered by you lot) to publish stuff like "this is in 7/8, and this is in 9/4, etc, etc, etc". The only victim is the quantity of information in this article. As for quality? As I say - it's pretty trivial to work out a song's timing so I hardly think the quality is at risk from people performing original "research"... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.109.156.182 (
talk)
17:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, is there any explanation in any of the wikipedia articles of how to interpret the time signature notations such as 32/2/4 work? If so can I suggest you link to it from this list for readers such as myself who are unfamiliar with it? I've checked the time signatures article and though it mentions many unusual time signatures, doesn't seem to explain this notation.
Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC).
I was about to comment on this entry, when I saw that a section had already been started about it.
For one thing, the score for this piece *is* available on-line (p. 6):
http://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks/usimg/e/e3/IMSLP98987-PMLP203419-Telemann-Intrada-2-violinen.pdf
- and it is given as ordinary 2/2 time - and the notes within the bars conform to that, too. If Telemann or his original publisher used the unusual time signature, at least this edition has replaced it with 2/2 - and the note-values in each bar add up to that in perfectly orthodox fashion.
Has anyone seen a copy of this piece that uses the unusual time signature? If it doesn't exist, then this entry would seem to be questionable.
(If the intended meaning of this time signature is "three and two halves over 4" (in other words, 4/4 or maybe 2/2), then I'm not sure I quite see what's humorous about that. But (if it's not stretching the "humourless Germans" joke too far), I am quarter-German by blood, but certainly not without a sense of humour in general. But I had to study and think about the time signature for quite a while before I could decide what it *maybe* meant - and even then I wasn't sure.) M.J.E. ( talk) 10:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the "must have source" policy is a bit silly for this article, since the song/record itself is the reference! Vegard ( talk) 10:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You have to take into account the fact that some people are simply not very good at figuring out time signatures. A song might have a "regular" or "simple" time signature but be weirdly accented, and that sort of thing tends to throw some people off. Some of the entries in this article are way off, for example. I have some problems with the article. 1. There is no universally accepted idea of what an "unusual" time signature is, making the whole premise of the article entirely subjective. 2. Most musicians have no problem working in 5/4, 7/4, 9/8 or 15/8, and time signatures such as these are by no means rare. 3. The article has the potential to mislead readers due to the likelihood that some people will make mistakes when counting out the more difficult rhythms. 4. Authors of "reliable" sources are human and are pretty much just as likely to make mistakes as anyone else, depending on how they came about their information. 5. There are literally thousands of pieces of music that could be added to the list in this article. It could make up a wiki on its own. Where would it end? In conclusion, I think it would be better to delete the whole article, or at least limit the entries included to genuinely rare time signiture such as 59/8 or 181/16. In my opinion, to save argument, deletion is probably the best course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.217.128 ( talk) 02:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I am referring to this entry in the article:
I am not really sure that I understand the meaning of any time-signature denominator that is not a (positive) power of 2. (I hope no composers of the "weird" school ever take it into their heads to write negative denominators!)
I would understand exactly what 59/32 meant, or 59/64 - but just what does 59/48 signify? What exactly does the 48 refer to? 32 refers to a demisemiquaver, and 64 to a hemidemisemiquaver - so would 48 refer to the most obvious note of intermediate value: a dotted hemidemisemiquaver? Yet think about it another way: the 32, 64, etc. refer to the fraction of a whole-note or semibreve that the note itself occupies - so a note signified by "48" must be some note that is one 48th of a semibreve in value - and that is not a dotted hemidemisemiquaver. A dotted hemidemisemiquaver is equal to 3 (non-triplet) semihemidemisemiquavers (if such a name exists - or three 128th notes), so 48 of them are equal to 48 x 3 128th notes, and that comes to 144 128th notes, which is distinctly more than a semibreve in value (it's equal to 9 quavers or eighths). So presumably whatever note-value is exactly equal to one 48th of a semibreve is going to be part of some obscure tuplet or string of tied notes somewhere in between a 32nd and a 64th. (My head is spinning a bit around all these numbers, so I can't quite be bothered calculating exactly what it would be - but the point is that it is *not* equal to a dotted 64th.)
In other words, if you try to analyze it logically, 48 as a time-signature denominator is ambiguous and/or unclear.
Still, not to say that the composer didn't use it - and the article may simply reflect that. But it would add depth to the entry if an explanation of the meaning could be added. If anyone knows, it might be a useful addition to this entry to add a sentence or two explaining it.
Here's a much simpler, but exactly analogous example of the issue I'm referring to, which is far easier to understand. It would be as if you had a time signature like 4/3 - and I think I have seen such things occasionally, and puzzled over what the composer was intending to convey. What does the 3 mean? It might seem to signify a dotted crotchet, because that's roughly half-way between 4 (which represent a crotchet) and 2 (which represents a minim) - so it might look like an alternative way of notating 12/8 time (4 dotted crotchets in the bar). But 3 is that note-value exactly three of which fill a semibreve, *by definition* - that's how denominators in time signatures are defined - or, in other words, triplet minims in a 4/4 or 2/2 bar (there is no exact way of notating it without triplets). Again - quite different from the dotted crotchet that may come to mind. So, unless a detailed explanation is given (and it has some logic to it), a time signature of 4/3 is literally meaningless - conveys no meaning at all. M.J.E. ( talk) 10:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say it wasn't sufficient. Since this list is about very unusual time signatures, if one appears that is not meaningful according to the usual ways that time-signatures are interpreted, I thought it would make the article more informative if the meaning of it could be explained. Time-signature denominators which are not positive powers of 2 are not normally used, and I cannot think of any unambiguous way of drawing meaning out of them. So if one appears in the list, it would be good if an explanation of what it means was added.
That's what it's got to do with improving this list. M.J.E. ( talk) 12:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Does this (part b) count? Double sharp ( talk) 15:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Does this go here? Double sharp ( talk) 09:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
While I wholeheartedly agree that they are common enough to not list here (putting them elsewhere), it seems to me that time signatures like 5/1, 7/64 and 7/128 do count as unusual enough to stay here. Double sharp ( talk) 06:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the point of this section in the "Unsourced" sub-article. Why don't the songs in it just get merged to the sections of their respective times? Most songs with unusual time signatures, it seems, have only one, so the section seems redundant. Tezero ( talk) 20:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I've gotta ask. Why are time signatures like 8/4 and 8/8 considered unusual? 4+4 grouping being widespread is a no-brainer, but even other groupings aren't that rare. 3+3+2, for example, is ubiquitous in dancehall and reggaeton music and is also pretty easy to find in rock, appearing in songs like "First It Giveth" by Queens of the Stone Age and "Hello Seattle" by Owl City. I'd venture that unevenly divided 8/x is more common than triple-compound 9/x.
Is it just that writing them in sheet music as 8/8 is considered unusual? Tezero ( talk) 17:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Midis would likely help clarify some issues, for those songs that have midi versions available. I have used Noteworthy Composer to look at time signatures before, and the interesting thing is that the midi-creators don't have to bother with figuring that out, because time signature is essentially optional (and a non-factor as far as the midis themselves are concerned). Speaking of which, "Weapons Factory" by Koji Kondo from the Super Mario RPG OSV is in 13/4 or 13/8 time (can't really tell the difference). Should things like this be added, or is video game music not "real" enough for this list? 74.32.238.243 ( talk) 21:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The above entry was removed due to: "No evidence of editorial oversight for this source." http://stereogum.com/about.html claims there is an editorial staff, which has won many awards: http://stereogum.com/press.html. Hyacinth ( talk) 06:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
"My Human Gets Me Blues" by Captain Beefheart is in 4/4 time, with a vocal break in the middle and a section of 6/4 at the end. The opinion of a music reviewer that a song has a "complex" time signature is not sufficient evidence for it to be considered as having a complex time signature. I move for deletion of that item. 99.28.69.88 ( talk) 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
What note fills a measure in 4/1 time?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The pieces in this list with 5 or 7 as top numbers are getting large and I would like to know if these are still rare enough time signatures for them to qualify for unusual. Georgia guy ( talk) 20:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
A list with dozens of members, 7/x, still seems really small compared to a list with at least millions of members, 4/x. Counting all the songs in 7/x or 4/x the songs in 7/x would make up less than one percent of the total. That doesn't seem too frequent. Hyacinth ( talk) 05:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Why, all of a sudden, after years of remaining there, should the notice be removed? Secondly, how is the notice only to editors? Hyacinth ( talk) 07:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The best I've been able to find in support of your position so far are essays, not policy: WP:RF and Wikipedia:Make articles useful for readers, neither of which explicitly support or oppose our stances. Hyacinth ( talk) 07:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
? This section only contains cited listings. ? That might be marginally better but you would have to remove all of the uncited items (which might remove useful things that really could be cited quite easily with 5 minutes of Googling). -- Jubilee♫ clipman 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Let's start Wikipedia:Instruction to editors. Hyacinth ( talk) 07:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
This contains lots of nonsense, eg:
What is especially unusual about that? Why, indeed, does the header state "6/8"? That is is one of the most common times sigs used... Unusual for pop/rock perhaps but hardly a major revelation to the rest of us! -- Jubilee♫ clipman 06:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I searched these pages and could not find reference to Don Ellis. Although his most well known piece may have been "The French Connection," in 7/4, for the film by the same name, he wrote songs in many uncommon time signatures. He has an entry in Wikipedia, as do some of his works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.89.145 ( talk) 07:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
http://www.rosen-kranz.jp/d_7throse
The song that automatically plays in the background on that page is the one I mean. I'm pretty sure it's written in 15/4.
The band is
D, and the song is "7th Rose (Opening SE)". The website is of the company that the singer of the band owns. —
TafelAnatomie (
talk)
13:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
May be a good song to put in (wherever it fits). It bounces back and forth between several odd time signatures. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 23:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't find one for the song. I can find one for the album: a Rolling Stone review:
After a brief discussion with Jerome Kohl on his talk page, I have decided to call into question the sources used by this article. Since I enjoy the music of Pink Floyd, I decided to look up " Money" on this list. I was interested to see what the sources said about the apparent 7/4 time signature, so I followed them. I discovered that not only are those "two" sources the exact same one source but also that that source is a blog. However, the blog is run by members of the Music Genome Project ( [4]), and so might well be reliable enough for WP. Any way, this, among others, probably deals with matters as regards this particular song. WP:SOFIXIT, applies here, obviously. However, while I am happy to remove doubles and add additional refs for songs (including refs for "All You Need Is Love", whose sources on this page are also questionable, IMO), I am reluctant to remove sources without proper discussion of their merit/demerits on this page. I am going to fully review the policies/guidelines to remind/inform myself of the current consensus and thinking; then I will review this page's links to find out just how many doubles/questionables/ WP:BADCHARTS there are. I'll get back after that, though I will watch this page and respond to replies, of course, in the mean time. Help in tracking down the dodgy entries would be appreciated, of course! Cheers -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 01:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I just discovered that no piece by Conlon Nancarrow is listed here, even though his music is famous for being extremely unusual rhythmically. I thought about it and realized one issue--often his music is not in a "time signature" at all, so there's no section of this page where you'd put a given Nancarrow piece. But then, his music is not rhythmless and free. The "meter", if the word is stretched a bit, of his music is strictly defined, but often impossible to describe in time signature terms. Of particular note are his Studies for Player Piano, Study No. 33, "2 against the square root of 2" rhythm, Study No. 40, " e: pi" rhythm. Anyway, I suppose I can see why these pieces might be fit to list here, being basically "meterless". It still seemed weird to not see them listed when I first checked. Pfly ( talk) 08:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
What's the difference between 2+2+2+3 and 4+2+3?? 4 beats is always strong-weak-medium-weak, never strong-weak-weak-weak (without secondary stress on the middle "weak".) Georgia guy ( talk) 16:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Is there any rule about using 8/8 time?? I find it very natural to think that 4/4 time becomes 8/8 time if played at a slow enough tempo that you can easily feel 8 beats to a measure. However, a few Internet sites that talk about 8/8 time say that this is absolutely wrong and that 8/8 has to be grouped as 3+3+2 or 3+2+3 or 2+3+3. Anyone have a good experience with 8/8 time to be able to answer this question?? Georgia guy ( talk) 17:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to get into any wars here about the relative merits of one meter over another. But I was just searching the list of songs in 7 or partial-7 times and I thought of one, which maybe someone can find a source for: "Ring Out, Solstice Bells" by Jethro Tull. (from Songs from the Wood)
Perhaps the lyric of the verse (the part of the song played in 7) would suffice here as a source: "Seven maids move in seven time" and "Seven druids dance in seven time." Jtnet ( talk) 20:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Again, as above I would need help sourcing this -- I don't have access to sheet music -- but the intro and numerous "in-between" bits that echo the intro of "Siberian Khatru" by Yes (from Close to the Edge) are in 15/4, or alternatively in 8/4 + 7/4. Jtnet ( talk) 06:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please verify the time signature in Zeppelin's Four Sticks. The article states 5/4 and 3/4 but the beats are clearly eighth note beats. The reference is to a book. Even the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Sticks states it uses /8 time signatures. Did not want to just edit because it references a source, not sure how to handle. Thanks for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpk0721 ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxgBde1dCLo
Mediaeval Baebes - Verbum Caro. Is this in 42/8? It seems so to my ear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.52.2 ( talk) 19:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, gotta say that kind of 'standard keeping' - noble though it is - is a bit rich when tunes like Go To Sleep and Say A Little Prayer are being included in some desperately vain attempt to provide some content. Anyone with a brain can tell that the former is 1 4/4, followed by 2 3/4s and the latter is 4/4, 3/4, 4/4. Although they may add upto their respective cited meters. anyone with an even remotely musical brain can tell that's just desperate barrel-scraping pedantry for the sake of having some content in this article that is threadbare PRECISELY because of the so-called 'standards' that you hold so dear. I'm citing a tune that IS in 42/8 - FACT and you're giving me crap about citations. I thought this was meant to be a community of knowledgeable individuals capable of making judgement calls of this nature themselves without having to plagiarise other people's web articles. Looks like I was wrong. I appreciate that you have to uphold a certain standard, but you're also not robots. Use your brains - and your EARS!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.52.2 ( talk) 11:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It is clearly agreed by music theorists that 6/4 time is always 1-2-3-4-5-6, not 1-2-3-4-5-6, which is 3/2 counted wrongly; it should be counted with 3 beats. However, regarding:
"Playing in the Band" by the Grateful Dead (notated as 4/4 + 4/4 + 2/4). (10/4)
This I'm sure is the same as 5/2 only with the quarter note as the beat. That is, it is 2+2+2+2+2, not 3+3+2+2 (in any order.) Anyone have enough experience to confirm general differences between x/2 and 2x/4 time signatures (with x larger than 2)?? Georgia guy ( talk) 15:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Do film scores count as well? Wendy Carlos's main "Theme from Tron" (original film) is in slow 7/8 (4+3/8). (last entry on her blog page) A sample can be heard on amazon.com... --- megA ( talk) 16:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
...is in 12/8 except for a single 10/8 bar on the penultimate line of every verse. (e. g. 1st verse on the text "I yearn to turn my face to the dawn". (It is, however, often simplified to 12/8 in "cheaper" arangements...) you can see the bar (bar 7) here on scribd... -- megA ( talk) 17:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in music theory -- can someone confirm that Rusty Cage is partly in 19/4 time? -- Doradus ( talk) 05:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm new to adding to Wikipedia. I tried to add a piece of music to this page, under the Partially in 2½/4 section, but it was deleted. I assume because there was no source. However, as I wrote the music in the first place, I know what the time signature is, and I know it is partially in 2½/4, wit a middle section in 4/4 time. I also put a link to the piece of music, so that anyone who wanted to could have a listen. Did I offend some other local cultural behaviour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingo master 17 ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I have not made many contributions to Wikipedia, but I was itching when I found some music that could be in 7/8 for the first 40 or so seconds. It is "I am the Doctor" of Series 5, composed in a 2+2+2+1 grouping. I also am wondering about Olafur Arnalds's works. The latter could just be uneven fermatas. It does have a 5/8-type section. 71.234.166.64 ( talk) 21:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The above song [by Gallows] is played partially in either 7/4 or alternating 4/4 and 3/4, which I feel makes it a valid candidate. I'm just suggesting entry, I'm not going to change anything in case I oughtn't. 75.73.139.144 ( talk) 21:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Distinctive unconventional time signature indeed. One listen makes it clear that this is in 4/4. Roch Parisien doesn't know what he's talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.214.213 ( talk) 18:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
>>> Anyone who can count and has a little musical training can tell what time sig a tune has. It's hardly "research" to declare this, you bunch of stuffed shirts!!! Maybe the reason you can't find any decent sources is because it's generally worth nobody else's time (but people trying to enrich this article and being hindered by you lot) to publish stuff like "this is in 7/8, and this is in 9/4, etc, etc, etc". The only victim is the quantity of information in this article. As for quality? As I say - it's pretty trivial to work out a song's timing so I hardly think the quality is at risk from people performing original "research"... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.109.156.182 (
talk)
17:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, is there any explanation in any of the wikipedia articles of how to interpret the time signature notations such as 32/2/4 work? If so can I suggest you link to it from this list for readers such as myself who are unfamiliar with it? I've checked the time signatures article and though it mentions many unusual time signatures, doesn't seem to explain this notation.
Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC).
I was about to comment on this entry, when I saw that a section had already been started about it.
For one thing, the score for this piece *is* available on-line (p. 6):
http://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks/usimg/e/e3/IMSLP98987-PMLP203419-Telemann-Intrada-2-violinen.pdf
- and it is given as ordinary 2/2 time - and the notes within the bars conform to that, too. If Telemann or his original publisher used the unusual time signature, at least this edition has replaced it with 2/2 - and the note-values in each bar add up to that in perfectly orthodox fashion.
Has anyone seen a copy of this piece that uses the unusual time signature? If it doesn't exist, then this entry would seem to be questionable.
(If the intended meaning of this time signature is "three and two halves over 4" (in other words, 4/4 or maybe 2/2), then I'm not sure I quite see what's humorous about that. But (if it's not stretching the "humourless Germans" joke too far), I am quarter-German by blood, but certainly not without a sense of humour in general. But I had to study and think about the time signature for quite a while before I could decide what it *maybe* meant - and even then I wasn't sure.) M.J.E. ( talk) 10:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the "must have source" policy is a bit silly for this article, since the song/record itself is the reference! Vegard ( talk) 10:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You have to take into account the fact that some people are simply not very good at figuring out time signatures. A song might have a "regular" or "simple" time signature but be weirdly accented, and that sort of thing tends to throw some people off. Some of the entries in this article are way off, for example. I have some problems with the article. 1. There is no universally accepted idea of what an "unusual" time signature is, making the whole premise of the article entirely subjective. 2. Most musicians have no problem working in 5/4, 7/4, 9/8 or 15/8, and time signatures such as these are by no means rare. 3. The article has the potential to mislead readers due to the likelihood that some people will make mistakes when counting out the more difficult rhythms. 4. Authors of "reliable" sources are human and are pretty much just as likely to make mistakes as anyone else, depending on how they came about their information. 5. There are literally thousands of pieces of music that could be added to the list in this article. It could make up a wiki on its own. Where would it end? In conclusion, I think it would be better to delete the whole article, or at least limit the entries included to genuinely rare time signiture such as 59/8 or 181/16. In my opinion, to save argument, deletion is probably the best course of action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.217.128 ( talk) 02:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I am referring to this entry in the article:
I am not really sure that I understand the meaning of any time-signature denominator that is not a (positive) power of 2. (I hope no composers of the "weird" school ever take it into their heads to write negative denominators!)
I would understand exactly what 59/32 meant, or 59/64 - but just what does 59/48 signify? What exactly does the 48 refer to? 32 refers to a demisemiquaver, and 64 to a hemidemisemiquaver - so would 48 refer to the most obvious note of intermediate value: a dotted hemidemisemiquaver? Yet think about it another way: the 32, 64, etc. refer to the fraction of a whole-note or semibreve that the note itself occupies - so a note signified by "48" must be some note that is one 48th of a semibreve in value - and that is not a dotted hemidemisemiquaver. A dotted hemidemisemiquaver is equal to 3 (non-triplet) semihemidemisemiquavers (if such a name exists - or three 128th notes), so 48 of them are equal to 48 x 3 128th notes, and that comes to 144 128th notes, which is distinctly more than a semibreve in value (it's equal to 9 quavers or eighths). So presumably whatever note-value is exactly equal to one 48th of a semibreve is going to be part of some obscure tuplet or string of tied notes somewhere in between a 32nd and a 64th. (My head is spinning a bit around all these numbers, so I can't quite be bothered calculating exactly what it would be - but the point is that it is *not* equal to a dotted 64th.)
In other words, if you try to analyze it logically, 48 as a time-signature denominator is ambiguous and/or unclear.
Still, not to say that the composer didn't use it - and the article may simply reflect that. But it would add depth to the entry if an explanation of the meaning could be added. If anyone knows, it might be a useful addition to this entry to add a sentence or two explaining it.
Here's a much simpler, but exactly analogous example of the issue I'm referring to, which is far easier to understand. It would be as if you had a time signature like 4/3 - and I think I have seen such things occasionally, and puzzled over what the composer was intending to convey. What does the 3 mean? It might seem to signify a dotted crotchet, because that's roughly half-way between 4 (which represent a crotchet) and 2 (which represents a minim) - so it might look like an alternative way of notating 12/8 time (4 dotted crotchets in the bar). But 3 is that note-value exactly three of which fill a semibreve, *by definition* - that's how denominators in time signatures are defined - or, in other words, triplet minims in a 4/4 or 2/2 bar (there is no exact way of notating it without triplets). Again - quite different from the dotted crotchet that may come to mind. So, unless a detailed explanation is given (and it has some logic to it), a time signature of 4/3 is literally meaningless - conveys no meaning at all. M.J.E. ( talk) 10:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say it wasn't sufficient. Since this list is about very unusual time signatures, if one appears that is not meaningful according to the usual ways that time-signatures are interpreted, I thought it would make the article more informative if the meaning of it could be explained. Time-signature denominators which are not positive powers of 2 are not normally used, and I cannot think of any unambiguous way of drawing meaning out of them. So if one appears in the list, it would be good if an explanation of what it means was added.
That's what it's got to do with improving this list. M.J.E. ( talk) 12:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Does this (part b) count? Double sharp ( talk) 15:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Does this go here? Double sharp ( talk) 09:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
While I wholeheartedly agree that they are common enough to not list here (putting them elsewhere), it seems to me that time signatures like 5/1, 7/64 and 7/128 do count as unusual enough to stay here. Double sharp ( talk) 06:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand the point of this section in the "Unsourced" sub-article. Why don't the songs in it just get merged to the sections of their respective times? Most songs with unusual time signatures, it seems, have only one, so the section seems redundant. Tezero ( talk) 20:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I've gotta ask. Why are time signatures like 8/4 and 8/8 considered unusual? 4+4 grouping being widespread is a no-brainer, but even other groupings aren't that rare. 3+3+2, for example, is ubiquitous in dancehall and reggaeton music and is also pretty easy to find in rock, appearing in songs like "First It Giveth" by Queens of the Stone Age and "Hello Seattle" by Owl City. I'd venture that unevenly divided 8/x is more common than triple-compound 9/x.
Is it just that writing them in sheet music as 8/8 is considered unusual? Tezero ( talk) 17:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)