Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures/Archive 1

John Petrucci

As stated in John Petrucci's psycho exercice secret taps, he can play in 69/42 time signature. We should add this.

Moby Dick

I don't think this song fits in this article. The vast majority of the song is just a free improvised drum solo. That shouldn't count as multiple time signatures. --Danmerqury 03:04 08 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a really bad topic!

There are many songs/pieces listed here that have completely regular time signatures. Inserting a bar of 2/4 in an otherwise piece of 4/4 music is an extremely common idiom. If a phrase of 4/4, 4/4, 4/4, 2/4 is continually repeated, you do not gather all of the crotchet beats of the phrase into the time signature. The phrase remains 4/4, 4/4, 4/4, 2/4 and NOT 14/4! For example, "Make Yourself" by Incubus is 4/4, 3/4, 4/4, 4/4 and not 15/4, which is ridiculously unnecessary. "Hey Ya!" in 22/4 just because it has a 2/4 bar? You must be joking! The one with 17/24 should also be taken off as it makes as much sense as a time signature of 43.6/Toast.

The essence of a time signature is that it marks the meter (the fundamental accents), not the starts of phrases.

By the way, I added The Mars Volta one at the end.

-added- mars volta, that part in cygnus vismund cygnus HAS to actually be in 29/16 because the idea is only complete once those 29 sixteenth notes have completed... and by the way, you're welcome for syncopating it... i had to slow it down in quicktime. it was fun, but it shows that that the band is genius. Robbie 04:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Mreoin 16:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with your assessment of Hey Ya! (I'm not familiar with the Incubus song however) but calling the whole list a 'really bad topic' is a 'really bad generalization.' Help us clean it up if you're dissatisfied. Some of these songs really ARE in their currently assigned time signatures and I think this is a valuable resource for musicians and others. On a somewhat related note...I suggest that people list the album(s) on which these songs/works appear (and wikilink it if available) so that it's easier for others to listen to these songs. I will start doing this with the songs I've added.--Hraefen 18:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• I took "Hey Ya!", "Wuthering Heights" and "Make Yourself" from the list because they were ones that popped out while I was browsing that were wrong. I've been asked to give a reason. Well, you COULD count "Hey Ya!" in 22/4. Then again, you COULD count a waltz in 7/4 if you really wanted. I added some to the list. Can't remember what exactly.

• Please sign, and how exactly could you count a waltz in 7/4? Unless you mean by not even paying attention to the song's beat, I don't see how. Then again, I'm not familiar enough with "Hey Ya" to know if it is or isn't 22/4. Also, I find it odd that you flame the article and then proceeded to add an interesting song to the list. I'm all for the list, and I agree it needs some watching to make sure songs that really are what they are claimed to be make it to the list. Folkor 22:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who put it in as 22/4, and actually it's fine with me that it was taken out. It was originally there as 11/4, which is just incorrect. I agree that some of these examples are groupings of phrases, as opposed to time signatures; I can't imagine that any sheet music of "Hey Ya" would actually be in 22/4, for example (and yes, the 7/4 analogy wasn't very good; a better analogy would be that you can categorize a waltz as 12/4 - musically valid, but pointless). Maybe there should be a separate article for unconvential measure groupings? Or at least a separate category within this article? Such songs are musically interesting but, it's true, don't really belong in this article as it currently stands. Korny O'Near 22:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Good point Korny. There are a few Wolf Parade songs where they use groupings of different sigs that are interesting, but don't fit any category of lists currently on wiki. There are many examples like this and a List of songs which contain more than one time signature would become impossibly huge and messy before too long. But I think these songs should have somewhere to be included. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? If we can figure out some kind of system, it could help to get rid of some of these songs which are clearly miscategorized but here for now because they have no other place to be.-- Hraefen 23:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI, Rolling Stone considers Hey Ya to be 11/4. --Arcadian 00:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wow, whoever wrote that Rolling Stone article doesn't know a quarter note from a hole in the ground, but I'd say that citation is a good reason to put Hey Ya! in 11/4 and leave it there (unless someone can come up with a citation that differs).--Hraefen 01:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this is becoming two separate conversations. The first is citations vs. "original research". In the case of "Hey Ya", the only known "official" citation is Rolling Stone (I read that one too), which obviously got it wrong. The question is, is it original research to call it 22/4 (or leave it out entirely)? This is a bit of a semantic question - you obviously don't need a citation to write something like "cats have four legs". I would say these time signature issues, for the most part, are obvious enough (for musicians anyway) that they don't need citations. To put it another way, it may be "original", but it's not "research".

For the other conversation, about songs with compound meters, I put in a separate discussion topic, "Compound time signature songs". Korny O'Near 16:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Did anyone actually read the Rolling Stone article? The link provided goes to an almost blank page with no information, only some links, about OutKast. Hyacinth 17:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, google cache: [1]: "bizarre 11/4 time signature". Hyacinth 10:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Above Google cache link looks to be out of date as of 06 July 2006: cache:1ePCPid6lSMJ:www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/6596025/outkast?pageid=rs.Artistcage&pageregion=triple3 time signature site:www.rollingstone.com - did not match any documents

Would anyone care to take a stab at Katie Melua's "Closest Thing to Crazy"?!

By my reckoning, its groupings are as follows:

Bridge: 4 4 4 4

Verse: 3 4 3 4, 3 4 4 4, 3 4 3 4, 3 4 4 4

Chorus: 4 4 4 4, 4 4 3 3, 4 2 4 2 2 2

--Metanym 5 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)

Some of the entries here are kinda' funky, no?

It's cool to see so many updates! I've been having fun listening to some of the songs mentioned that I never realized were in odd times. I just wanted to open a dialog because I think there are a couple of strange entries here. For instance Led Zep's "The Ocean" is really a 4/4 song with a 7/8 measure thrown in during the main riff. Someone placed it in 15/4, which seems wrong. Even if you were to count this song in 15, wouldn't it be 15/8? (I moved it to 15/8, though I think it really belongs in 7/8, and made a note about the riff). Also, "Master of Puppets" by Metallica is another one that's mostly in straight time (4/4 & 2/4), but there are a couple of 5/8 measures thrown in (I don't really think it would be considered anything as exotic as 15/4 by any stretch). Same goes for the outrageous 61/8 attributed to King Crimson's "Discipline". I just gave the song a listen. It sounds like a long section of 5/8 with some other modulations happening periodically. I somehow doubt Fripp, Bruford, et. al. were counting to 61 (though you never know with such heavy dudes). It seems a couple of the higher numbered entries here are people just adding up all the measures of a song that modulates through a couple of changes and claiming it as something more than it is. What do others think? --Dkaplowitz 05:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

In the case of DT's "Wait for Sleep" I removed it from "41/8" with the following comment: Adding 3 meas. of 5/8, 1 of 4/8, 3 of 6/8 and another of 4/8 into 41/8 isn't how a song's time signature is determined. This song has shifting time sigs, it's not one big long time sig. If you listen to the song there's no real phrasing that would suggest one long time signature. I also have a transcription of it that shows the shifting smaller time sigs. Why do I get the feeling people adding shifting time sigs into one huge time sig is making this a "bigger is better" contest? --Dkaplowitz 12:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it time to split this into "list of works based on consistent irregular time signatures" (such as Mars and Unsquare Dance) and "list of works with a shifting pattern of time signatures" and even "list of works with an occasional odd-length measure thrown in". Then we'd see how un-useful the last two lists are (I'm half expecting someone to count up the bars in Copland's rodeoHoe-Down - say about 200 - note the 3/4 bar near the beginning, and list the whole thing as 403/4). David Brooks 19:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Back when this list was in the Time signature article, I proposed a minimum standard that all entries must be based on published sheet music; otherwise, there's no verifiability. I propose this again. Listening to a song and then guessing its time signature is original research. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

There could be some kind of standard imposed, but there may be valid cases where the composer never actually wrote down his notes, or where "official" transcriptions or published volumes just aren't available. And who's to say that someone who's gotten an ISBN # for his transcriptions of a composer's work is 100% accurate all the time? Also, I have gotten a lot out of seeing the entries here and saying "no way that's in x time" and going and intently listening to the song to verify. I think people posting stuff here and being incorrect will only bring about more discussion when someone else argues why it's incorrect. Maybe that's too idealistic, I haven't been on the wiki very long. Music's an art of the ears before it's a translatable written document. Anyway, I would rather see a forked page with shifting time sigs (that could have stuff that only has 1 or 2 time sig changes) and leave this one to songs that are either entirely or more significantly in odd times. --Dkaplowitz 04:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Getting inspired to listen to old favorites with new ears is wonderful, Dka, but Wikipedia isn't the place for discussion or discovery. It's a secondary source for information verifiably published elsewhere; the official standard is to be able to cite sources for everything in every article. Please read WP:V and WP:NOR. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Grouped as

I inserted the word "usually" before "grouped as either (3+2) or (2+3)" although I'm not sure that's what I meant either. Many of the orchestral works listed, at least, have no indication in the notation that they are intended to be subdivided, and I think we are talking about the natural human reaction to look for a subdivision in the rhythm. So, yes, it's hard to listen to Mars without thinking of 3+2, although I believe there is a recording where the conductor is thinking 2+3. The Tchaikovsky could go either way, or different ways in different measures. But would we say "4/4, subdivided as 2+2"? I didn't give the same attention to the other entries (7/8 et al) although they probably need checking. Thoughts? David Brooks 19:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you. I think the groupings would best serve the discussion if they were only indicated in the examples given, (if there are in fact any groupings therein). To just say 5/8 (in general) is 2+3 or 3+2 really isn't helping this discussion, IMO. But to say that this or that section of a song is grouped thus is actually helpful for those who haven't heard it (or for those who are having a tough time hearing how it's subdivided). --Dkaplowitz 04:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent mass deletions by 68.50.100.146

I hope this was a typo, but I'm not sure judging by the previous history of inaccuracy and constant reversions back to inaccurate entries by the person at the IP address: 68.50.100.146, despite articulate notes why said entries were wrong. Regardless, I've made a report to mooderators for review. Dkaplowitz 18:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

hello i would like to say that i am not a vandal but i am highly agitated at the recent deletions/corrections of my entries, and i only got a private message today, nobody tried to contact me before. my being new to to wikipedia might be why i wasn't on the discussion for this as i should've known more about how this little thing works, and understandably there should've been more communication. however i thought the experts here would agree with the entires or would have listened to all of them firsthand before claiming they were frivolous. i wasn't expecting to have to explain them, because you all know so much about irregular meters. all the entires i posted had been verified by musicians and professors and other authorities someone here couldve contacted me before deleting them. if you had asked me previously, sorry but i am new to this

Hello, and thanks for chiming in. Welcome to the wiki. I don't think anyone is trying to say they know more than you. However, if you click the "history" button on this article, or the "discussion" button, you will see that many of your entries that were changed/deleted included comments as to why they were changed/deleted. Other participants were trying to open a discussion about the topic, not to dictate. If you disagreed, it would have been fine for you to say why you disagreed (in the discussion page or on the offending individual's talk page) -- and also to cite your sources. But when you kept reverting any changes back with no communication (and because you are doing all your editing under the cloak of anonymity), it was perceived as vandalism. I would also call into question your deleting much of the article in retaliation. That's definitely vandalism. I hope you get it all sorted out and can contribute some useful entries to the article. Dkaplowitz 04:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

17/24??

I know Kyle Gann's piece is probably written down, so the time signature is undeniable, but what does a denominator of 24 even mean? That the triplet sixteenth-note gets the beat? I think it deserves some explanation in the article. —Keenan Pepper 04:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't really know if I believe this buy but this is what he explains, and someone told me that he did write a song using 133/32 but I admit it sounds a little outrageous http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/archives20040301.shtml

I read this source you cited (the first time you posted it in the main article). Here's what he says: "For one thing, its meter numerators may be limited to powers of 2, but its denominators go up to 99. I don’t promise I’ll never use 133/32 meter, but in my Desert Sonata I have a long passage in 41/16 meter,..." That's all this article says about 133/32 time. It's speculation. He's not saying that he ever did (or even that he ever will) write a song in that time signature. Dkaplowitz 04:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Back to the original question about 17/24, I'm guessing that since a 24th note is a 16th-note triplet, this is a time signature that features 17 pulses in a feel that reflects 16th-note triplets. I'm not sure I would personally notate it thus, but I'm sure Kyle Gann had a reason for doing so. It seems kinda' like calling 7/8 with a 3+3+1 feel 7/12. BTW, I've got to hear some of his stuff. Sounds like he's got some pretty crazy rhythmic events happening in his music.

This is obviously anecdotal and not directly relevant, but it might be revealing. I once wrote a song with a strong 4/4 feel, but occasional measures ending with the last half measure divided into 3 tripletted quarters. Then at two section transitions I did the folky thing of dropping the last "beat", but with the triplets, transitioning to the next measure after only 2 of the 3 tripletted quarters. I just wrote it that way as an interesting thing to do without really thinking about the notation issue; I don't remember what I wrote down for my bandmates. But mathematically, you've got what's normally 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 truncated to 1/4 + 1/4 + 1/6 + 1/6, which adds up to 2/4 + 2/6, or 20/24. (That can be reduced to 10/12, of course, but 17/24 can't.) It seems like you either call it something like 20/24 or 10/12, as a sort of bad nod to compound meter, or you call it 3.33333/4. The problem with calling it 20/16 or 10/8 is that it would also require a tempo change to match the rest of the 4/4 song, or the rest would have to be falsely notated in 12/8. Basically, the problem is that traditional musical notation expresses compound meter in the numerator when it ideally belongs in the denominator (or both, really). So I'd guess something like this motivated Kyle Gann, but I dunno. Maybe he was just being silly. Nothings 08:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

1/4+1/4+1/6+1/6 is a needlessly complicated way to transcribe 5/8 or 5/4 played as 2+2+3+3· Lygophile has spoken 14:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Time to let the list go

I think we should just all agree to disagree. This list will never be complete or accurate enough. I apologize for the reckless deletions, but I think we are all guilty of acting childish about this crap. There is too much we don't understand about time signature, or odd time signature, I dont want there to be any more controversy. This list is insignificant.Time signatures are alot more mysterious than we think, lets leave it at that and put this list to rest. Its just gonna cause more arguments that will never get solved because there are not enough sources out there and none of us can prove anything about what we say here.

Well, I don't agree with you. I think this list is as cool as hell. We might not agree on many things, but there can be some compromise, I'm sure. I wouldn't give up. Time sigs are like math, they are units of time...it's very concrete. We just have different ways of grouping those units of time. You prefer 89 at once, I might prefer 16 of 5 + 1 of 4. If the artist intended 89, then I'm the oddball for thinking in smaller fractions. P.S. I was trying to edit your "additive signatures" entry above before you deleted it and changed it to this. Here's what I was saying, take it with a grain of salt:

I'm not an expert, but I was always under the impression that simplicity reigned when figuring out time signatures because if you think about it from a sight-reading standpoint, do you think it's easier to forget whether you're on the 73rd 8th note in a passage of 89/8 or if you're in the middle of one of the repeating groups of 5/8 or 6/8, or whatever? You might have a point if you say that's not important, however, you also have to ask whether it was intended (or logical) to be in the huge time signature. Does something in 41 or 89 really sound like it's just one giant phrase full of that many notes, or does it sound like a lot of 4/4 with a measure or two of 3/4 thrown in for rhythmic tension, or to shorten the beat for dramatic effect or something? Maybe I'm taking crazy pills but I think the simpler answer's always better. I can't help but feel like Led Zep weren't thinking "15" in "The Ocean" but that they were thinking 4/4 + 7/8...it sounds more logical when you listen and count it. It's been a while since I've read Gardner Reade's "Music Notation", so I'll have to check it when I get a chance to see if there are any "rules" or guidelins. I doubt there are any dogmatic rules. (And I'm not even sure if that text is still considered a standard reference work). Just my $0.02. Dkaplowitz 05:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I understand what you're saying and Im with you all the way on the simplicity issue but lets face it, this stuff gets boring. I find ways to try to make it more interesting like the additive thing and I like trying to get bigger and bigger but if you don't agree with that Im cool its just what else is there to look for? Frankly i've had enough with this subject of irregular meters its just annoying the hell out of me now like you wouldn't believe. Ive been into it for years, but it just doesn't satisfy me like it used to. I mean, whats so exciting? They're common place in popular music now what is so against the grain? Im more into innovation

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 07:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

That's cool that you like to be challenged. This article, by my understanding, is about trying to give accurate examples of real songs in "irregular" time signatures. It's providing a service to people who would be curious about that. And according to Wikipedia's guidelines we're supposed to be citing "established" resources that support what we're putting up here...all else would be considered "original research", which wikipedia isn't about. Anyway, good luck to you either way. Dkaplowitz 12:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Most of this is original research, we aren't breaking any new ground. Listeners today couldn't really care about counting time sigs, and alot of the more advance time sigs are not even countable so that makes it even more useless. The irregular meters being documented here are all easy to do, I'd say that programmed music such as hip hop where the beats adhere to perfect, mechanical timing is more difficult, because we as humans are naturally shifty time keepers. Transcriptions for modern songs go alot farther than they did when classical notation was enough to describe everything that went on in a song. Most of the ones that you can buy are only good for playing the main melody on an upright piano, they are not even close to being precise. With all the production techniques that are used today, that kind of notational method is from the dinosaur ages when compared to how complicated most contemporary popular music can get. 3fk3d54d 19:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Primus - My Name is Mud

Is that song REALLY 5/4? It sounds like a simple syncopated 4/4 to me. // Gargaj 12:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This is why we should set a verifiability standard for this page, as I have repeatedly proposed. 90% of the entries here are original research. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Its in flipping 4. Theres ONE BAR OF FIVE. A lot of bands put in one off bar. It's called a pause, but we count it differently and consider there to be extra beats.

JoJo has an odd meter song?!

it says its in 3/8 and 5/8, but I doubt that's the time signature, it's probably just the feel of the song....3/8 + 5/8 =....! 4/4!

Canterbury Scene

Would anybody suggest me time signatures of these things:

CALYX (Hatfield & the North - Hatfield & the North '73) KEW. RHÔNE. (John Greaves, Peter Blegvard, Lisa Herman - KEW. RHÔNE. '77)

They are that complex that I can't easily determine them.

Radiohead - Pyramid Song

This song sounds like 11/8 if you count by the piano chords in the beginning, but when the drums come in, it reveals itself to be 8/8 with triplets. The 2nd and 4th chords come on the third note of the triplet on the 2nd and 5th beats (the first two parts of the triplets are rests). I'm not sure if my terminology is right, but I'm fairly certain the time signature merely sounds irregular due to the odd use of triplets. 24.13.252.150 22:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought the reason the song got its name was cos the number of beat in each bar starts off as 11 then goes to 10, 9, ... then then grows again (symmetrical,pyramid style).

The Stranglers song "FOur Horsemen" has a similar section.--feline1 12:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"Pyramid song" is just a syncopated cross-rhythm in 4/4. Nothing more. —Keenan Pepper 15:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

See, this is why we need verifiability on this page; not everyone who listens to a song will agree on its meter. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Well time signature *is* subjective. (e.g. you can write out 12/8 as a load of triplets in 4/4) The more convoluted a piece of music's rhythms get, the more possible ways there are to think of its time signature. One man's "syncopated cross-rhythm in 4/4" is where another man decides that said syncopation *IS* the beat and defines the time signature. But really, it has to be one of the most anal areas of music going. (unsigned post by User:Feline1 on 122205)

as iv allready edited it in pyramid Song, its a constant repeat of 3+2+3 eigth, but then with an occasional shift of the first count of 3/8 forward. it starts with 5/8 11/8 5/8 11/8 5/8 8/8 8/8 11/8, and then the vocals start with 5/8 8/8 3/8· Lygophile has spoken 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

21/8

Ok Pink Floyd's "Money" and The Beatles' "All You Need is Love" are both grouped as 21/8 when they are 7/4. I understand where this person is coming from but I disagree. Both of these songs are in 7/4 in a swing rhythm and therefore have a triplet feel (stronger at some parts than others) which is why the person who put these songs put them in 21/8 instead of 7/4. By this same logic though, any song in common time with a swing rhythm would be categorized as 12/8 (three triplets for every quarter note). I think that this way of counting should only be employed when the triplet feel is felt so much more strongly than any other way of counting it, and I don't think that's the case here. I plan to change these both to 7/4 unless someone can convince me that they belong at 21/8.--Hraefen 00:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Before changing Money, you might want to check Talk:Money (song), and the second paragraph of Money (song). I'm not saying they're necessarily right, but it may provide valuable context. --Arcadian 01:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Although the 21/8 theory is sort of quaint, and this song could technically be interpreted as 21/8 (in some evil, parallel universe), people who get paid to transcribe music generally (dare I say universally?) agree it's in 7/4 with a triplet feel. Check "Pink Floyd Guitar Tab Anthology", ISBN 8882917533 for just one reference. I'd also be willing to bet that of the half a dozen or so published Dark Side of the Moon transcription/songbooks there's not one that notates it in 21, but I have yet to verify that. Entry moved back to 7/4. Dkaplowitz 03:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that both songs are played in 7/4. The sheet music I have of "All You Need Is Love" lists it as 7/4. In addition, I find the 21/8 section to be needlessly redundant, as it is essentially the same thing as 7/4. Spartacusprime 01:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is settled here, but it's not settled on the Money page, so I figured I should point out for finalities sake here: Take Five is in swung time (although it's jazz swung time, which is supposedly subtly off from strict triplet swung time). If Money is 21/8, then Take Five should be 15/8. But I think that one we can agree on; the composer refers to it as "5", and our published music notation on this page actually notates it as 5/4 explicitly (although I don't know if that was sourced from actual published sheet music--but I myself have seen actual published sheet music which I'm pretty sure called it 5/4, unfortunately it was nearly 20 years ago). Nothings 03:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sheet music be damned. The song is in 21/8. It is not 7/4. 7/4 has offbeats, money has no offbeats, is shuffled, into triplets, and 7 triplets are 21 beats. The whole point of this page is to nitpick songs endlessly, and money has wrongly been stated as being in 7/4 for far too long. 12 8 is not 4 4 and 21 8 is not 7 4. Gatesofawesome! 16:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that I know the PF song, but I have played a sheet music version of 'All you need is love'. This was notated in successive bars of 4/4 and 3/4, not even 7/4, let alone the absurdly less readable idea of 21/8. Simplicity of reading is the key here; to treat the triplet-like rhythms as a swung inflection makes it easier for the musician to comprehend, and breaking 7 up into 4+3 does the same. Adding everything up and putting it over the lowest common denominator does not mean that some strangely overcomplicated signature is the most appropriate one. After all, some of the solo riffs in AYNIL contain unswung semiquavers - should we attempt to accommodate these too, obtaining 84/16? This is just a game that people are playing here, that bears very little resemblance to how the music would actually be notated; further, I don't really see how this game fits into the scope of Wikipedia. This could be an interesting resource, but instead it is dominated by people providing answers who don't understand the questions. Dave Taylor 16/8/2006

Alternating & multiple time signature songs

As others have noted, some of the songs listed don't really belong in the current framework. There are a number of songs that have alternating time signatures, but shouldn't be classified as a single irregular time signature. Chief among these are pop songs that have a 4/4 feel but chop off a beat here and there for some added energy. Kelly Clarkson's "Low", for instance, has 3 bars of 4/4 and one of 3/4, but there's no way the sheet music for it would read "15/4". Then there are the songs that alternate between two or three time signatures, like many of your prog rock favorites. The question is, what should be done with these? I can think of four possibilities:

• Keep them as is
• Move them to a separate article
• Make another category in this article for them
• Remove them, and place some kind of explanatory note at the top of the article

Of these, #3 might be my favorite - the songs get categorized, but they don't get in the way of the real alternate-meter songs. What do other people think? Korny O'Near 16:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• I concur - option 3 sounds best to me. The prog rock-ish songs with several different unusual time signatures are probably fine in this list, but songs with an additional or a missing beat are kind of tricky. As you say, the 4+4+4+3 doesn't necessary equal 15... but it is still worth noting, to some extent. Folkor 22:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• I like option 3 while keeping the possibility of option 2 if the list should get too long.--Hraefen 22:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'd put songs which alternate in some strict pattern between time signatures (the sort that cause people to call them 41/8) in their own category. I'd put songs with occasional thrown-in single measures that are themselves odd times in the existing categories with a notation to this effect. I'd omit songs that merely drop a beat here or there (e.g. shifting from 4/4 to 3/4 for a measure, or 3/4 to 2/4 for a measure). Something like the "Low" example might qualify as either the first kind or the last kind, depending on how "structural" it felt; but that's hard to resolve without considering the result 'original research'. It seems like this is what the section called "Irregular time signature combinations" is meant to be? However, songs like Led Zeppelin's "Black Dog" do not involve strict alternation of meter under a single underlying so much as short alternating sections (e.g. 4 measures of 5/8 followed by 2 of 6/8 where the music for the two sections have very different feel, and not just rhythmically); similarly for "Happiness is a Warm Gun" (the Mother Superior section is the only one with the kind of alternation I think matters). Unfortunately, these are the first two entries chronologically, so it makes the meaning of the section misleading. Nothings 09:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree about that last part; a few of those entries don't belong in there. In addition, maybe there should be yet another category, for songs that contain more than one irregular time signature? Songs that contain a 5/8 section, and then an 11/8 section, for instance. Right now they're just dropped into one or the other, or (incorrectly) into the time-signature-combinations section. Korny O'Near 11:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Helmet

Shouldn't something by Helmet be in here somewhere? Forgive my ignorance, I was the singer, but I remember my bandmates talking about irregular time signatures for Helmet, sorry I can't provide specifics (it was something off "Meantime"). And I realize they wouldn't be the only current omission. -Mike

Garden Party: 17/16?

The entry for this song claims that whether the studio version is 17/16 or not is "hotly debated", but gives no citation to it. It was made by an anonymous user who made several edits on that day and has never edited before or after from that IP. It also isn't clear whether this means that the live version is unambigously 17/16 or unambiguously 16/16, assuming a live version exists.

I've listened to the studio version of the song, and it is true that tapping my hands to it, I find myself tapping out an odd count, presumably 17. However, the song opens with a straight 16 (3+3+3+3+2+2) keyboard part, which continues unchanged under the heavily syncopated, widely spaced main riff. I can see why it would be hotly debated therefore, but I think it's much more likely to simply be a deceptive rhythm, much like the syncopated swung-time riffs that are sometimes misheard as 11/8, like Radiohead's Pyramid described above, or King Crimson's Indiscipline. Unless there's some citation to the "hot debate" that really legitimizes that this isn't just a mishearing, I think the entry is best removed. Nothings 09:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This list is useless and will never be complete

You'd need to cover almost EVERY prog album. There is no point in doing such a list... It's like making a list for "songs in C". (unsigned post by anon 201.1.49.166)

I disagree that it is useless. There is no such thing as useless information. What degree of usefulness it has, though, is a matter of debate, obviously. I agree with our anonymous friend above, "This list is cool as hell". And so what if it will never be complete? When is an encyclopedia ever complete? The search for knowledge is inexhaustible. If you don't like this list, simply unwatch it and focus your energies elsewhere, and let those who want to work on this list do so in quiet enjoyment. Live and let live. JackofOz 10:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• The fact that this list exists and list of "songs in C" does not should tell you something. JackofOz is right... no one is making you look at this list and we're certainly not asking you to make obvious, unproductive observations.--Hraefen 20:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Right on, Hraefen. Thanks for your support. JackofOz 01:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• A list of songs in C would be interesting... partially because there are so many versions of C. Would you mean major, minor, Mixolydian (dominant), diminished, or one of the other countless forms? And would you say a song in G Mixolydian/dominant is the same as C major/Ionian? Maybe that's why there isn't a page for that. Yes, prog rock will likely dominate this list - and what's wrong with that? Some genres favor odd time signatures, but most don't. Playing in C (major or otherwise) is shared rather universally. Folkor 18:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)