Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Moving one sentence from from section to another

' "Sensemayá", for orchestra, by Silvestre Revueltas, is predominantly in 7/8, with occasional interruptions in 7/16 time and a brief 7-bar interlude at rehearsal 23 of 9/8 (3/4+3/8). '

I'm thining that since this uses other time signatures, maybe it would be more appropriate to put it in the 'partially in 7/8' section instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.57.158 (talk) 17:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, you are correct, but a piece of some 300 bars with only one seven-bar exception (the 7/16 bars aren't exceptions to septuple meter, though of course the category is "7/4 or 7/8", which perhaps should be changed to accommodate 7/2, 7/16, etc.) is not quite the same thing as a piece with, say, just four bars of 7/8 out of a total of 24. As a matter of fact, there are a number of other pieces in this list that are not quite totally notated in the time signature mentioned. For example, the Prokofiev op. 2, no. 2 has 18/16 time in every bar (passed back and forth from one hand to the other) except the last, which is in 4/4 in both hands; both of the 13/8 examples state that only portions are in that meter; the 19/16 example cited states it is only the "outro" section that is in that meter. It seems to me that, if a piece is overwhelmingly in one meter, it doesn't really belong in the "partially in" category, but I'm not going to object if you really want to move it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Blue Rondo a la Turk not in 7/8

I think I edited this once, and it got reverted, probably because of the footnote. Well, even in the Grove, mistakes happen. The piece is in 9/8 for the theme and goes to 4/4 via alternating bars of 9/8 and 4/4 for the solos. Listen to it, and correct, please. klaus--91.32.62.195 (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that Grove citation seemed wrong, though I haven't heard this piece for a long while. The problem is not one of "listen to it and correct", but rather a matter of finding a better citation—like a score, for example, which would trump Grove. All I have been able to turn up online (without making a purchase, that is) is the refrain (what you call the "theme") and it is, indeed, in 9/8 throughout, with the eighths grouped in the (allegedly) Turkish rhythm of 2+2+2+3 (the reason for its inclusion as an "odd metre").—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the pieces that we listened to in first year as an example of odd metres, and I don't have a score, but I still have the CD. From the booklet - "Blue Rondo A La Turk plugest straight into the most jazz-remote time-signature, 9/8, grouped not in the usual form (3-3-3) but 2-2-2-3. When the gusty opening section gives way to a more familiar jazz beat, the three eighth-notes have become equivalent to one quarter-note, and an alternating 9/8-4/4 time leads into a fine solo by Paul Desmond." No mention of 7/8. 38.99.160.130 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There are other questionable entries as well; sourcing isn't exactly perfect (just to shove it down your throats one more time, these sources are often journalists rather than musicologists). The AMG note for "Anyone Who Had A Heart" is dubious as well. I believe that entry and its source were actually deleted from the old page because editors had more or less decided that it was absurd. See here for the discussion. --Anonymous 67.187.38.109 (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is questionable. In the first place time, time signatures and measure lines are entirely a matter of notation, and they are added purely as a convenience to the performer, to give him something to count. The same piece notated in any time signature whatsoever would sound precisely the same--although in general we would wish the time signature to conform approximately to the prevailing grouping of the music. In the second place, there is nothing more asymmetrical about 5/4, for example, subdivided as Lalo Shifrin divides "Mission Impossible", 3+3+2+2 eighths, than there is about the extremely common 3+3+2 eighths division of 4/4. Neither of these really involves syncopation. Instead, in the former we have four unequal beats and in the latter we have three unequal beats. Unequal beats are inherently asymmetrical. TheScotch (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "The problem is not one of 'listen to it and correct', but rather a matter of finding a better citation—like a score, for example, which would trump Grove.":

I've owned for several decades a folio of Brubeck pieces, including this one, arranged for piano and edited by Brubeck's brother Howard. This is not "the score", however, because it is arranged (saxophone, drums, and bass parts are missing) and because it was to a significant extent transcribed after the fact from the recording (some improvised solos are notated, for example). I doubt that a true and full score ever existed--a fortiori, a commercially available one. That means that all we say is that the piece is notated with such and such time signatures in this published arrangement--or with such and such in some other published arrangement. I'll have to go back and check, but if I remember correctly the main time signature (as notated here--which should go without saying) is not quite 9/8 but, rather, 9/8 (2+2+2+3): with the arithmetic actually written out, a practice to which Paul Creston in his Principles of Rhythm takes great exception.

By the way, a little thought will show that the grouping here is not nearly so unusual or remarkable as Brubeck seems to have supposed. One of most common rhythms in 3/4, for example, is a half-note followed by a quarter note (which does not represent the unequal beats I discuss above). The equivalent in 9/8 is a dotted half-note followed by a dotted quarter note. The half-note in 3/4 can be replaced by three quarter-note triplets without essentially altering the rhythm (the triplets here merely articulate the half-note differently), and the quarter-note triplets can themselves be divided into two parts each without essentially altering the rhythm (again: different articulation). If we divide the remaining quarter note (in 9/8 the remaining dotted quarter note) in three parts (eighth-note triplets in 3/4), we have precisely the rhythm Brubeck uses here. Essentially it's merely 2:1 in triple meter, one of the most ordinary things in existence. TheScotch (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the folio I refer to above including a piano arrangement of "Blue Rondo a la Turk" is called Dave Brubeck: Deluxe Piano Album. It's published by Charles Hanson II, Music and Books of California, Inc., Los Angeles, copyright 1965 by Derry Music Company. Howard Brubeck is credited with transcription and editing. The arrangement (or transcription) in question begins with a time signature of 9/8 ([2+2+2+3]/8) and also includes 4/4 and 9/8 (without subdivision information) time signatures. TheScotch (talk) 05:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed the entry to put it as 9/8 and 4/4. I did not know how to edit the (incorrect) Grove reference, though. So now it has a citation problem. Perhaps someone can fix this (or remove the reference altogether, or put the album notes as the reference - which were a requote of Steve race's original notes for the 'Time Out' album of 1959). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.90.231 (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Since by the definition the article states 9/8 is not an unusual time signature, if we're to go either by these liner notes or the arrangement to which I refer above--in contradistinction to Grove (7/8 is unusual according to the article's definition)--Blue Rondo doesn't belong in the article.

Your edit summary, by the way, says that "2+2+2+3 is very common in Turkey". This would seem not to help Blue Rondo's case. TheScotch (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A great many of these "odd meters" are common in some parts of the world. 5/8 and 7/8, for example, are quite common in Greek and Balkan folk music; 5/4 is a traditional meter in Russian wedding songs. This doesn't mean that they are common in the world at large. You are of course quite correct to say 9/8 is, by the definition in the lede of this article, a "usual" time signature. The effectively four-beat meter (short-short-short-long) of course is a fish of an entirely different complexion—outside of Turkey, at least—and this underlines the problem of symbol vs. metrical rhythm, discussed in scattered places all around this Talk page.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Walter Piston and I don't consider meter a good term with which to make the distinction. (See the last two sections of this discussion page.) For that matter, as I point out above, I don't happen to consider Blue Rondo's grouping and subgrouping all that differently complected; it's simply normal 9/8 with a 3-bracket over the first two dotted quarters. As I also point out above, a 3+3+2 subgrouping of 4/4 is common in the world at large, including the part of the world from which I write. It's in every rumba, for example, and it's not any less asymmetrical than "Take Five", a circumstance Burt Bacharach may have been attempting to call attention to in his "Walk on By"'. If we want to retain the article's current title, we need to delete the 9/8 section, and I don't see that that should be a "problem".

I have to say, our definition of "unusual" here is of no particular musical significance. It would be more reasonable to distinguish additive and divisive rhythms and rhythms with equal and unequal beats. It would also be more reasonable--much more reasonable--to list only a few examples of each kind of rhythm. It's quite possible this has already been done elsewhere at Wikipedia, in which case the reasonable thing to do would be to remove this entire article. If we must keep the article, however, then let's have it really be about time signatures and delete the 9/8 section--for starters. TheScotch (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

9/8 unusual?

Why is 9/8 unusual? Timneu22 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that would be, as it isn't either 4/4 or 6/8, the most common time sigs. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Depends how you divid it - 3+3+3 is not unusual, but there are less common ways to do 9/8. 38.99.160.130 (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess. I'm used to seeing it divided 3/3/3. I guess if it is done differently, then it is unusual. Timneu22 (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I hear 9/8 time as 6 and 3, which is the pick pattern I'd use on a guitar. I'm thinking of "Impossible Dream" and "Blessed Assurance." sandinmyears (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.81.130 (talk)

Dividing a common time signature in an unusual way may give you an unusual division, but it can't turn a common time signature into an uncommon one. The title of this article is "List of musical works in [sic] unusual time signatures" not "List of musicals works with usual time signatures divided unusually". After all, four-four can also be divided all sorts of ways. TheScotch (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Where have all the time signatures gone?

Sorry if I'm a little misinformed, but I haven't been here in a while, and I'd just like to ask: WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED TO 13/8, 15/8, 19/8 AND 21/8? Watto the jazzman (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee! Has the edit history disappeared, or something? Frankly, I've not been contributing to the editing of this article for very long, but I suspect that, if these metres were once there and are now gone, it probably has to do with the WP:V problem, which has been discussed here into the ground.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Refer to the Deletions and Sourcing section in this talk page. It is indeed the WP:V issue. And I doubt anyone not already involved would want to touch this with a ten-foot pole. --Anonymous 67.187.38.109 (talk) 08:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this page used to be one of the premier places on the internet to find obscure time signatures. It was a prime example of wikipedia's founding principle of being a collective body of knowledge. I'm surprised to see how many people have successfully found sources for their submitted irregular time signatures because it's not the sort of thing that is easy to find on the internet. A musician with a basic knowledge of time signatures can listen to Tool's Lateralus and count out numerous sections that exhibit 10/8 and 5/8, but finding a website that backs this up is a whole other hurdle. The wikipedia rulebook and whatever wiki-bureaucrat made the call to rebuild it complete with mandatory citations has VANDALIZED it in my book. It now sucks compared to what it used to be. What I think would make sense is to return to how it used to be...if some idiot makes a misinformed contribution, there's ALWAYS somebody else out there who will be ready to point out just how wrong that original contributor was. This is the internet remember? If there's a dispute...that's what the discussion board is for. This article has the potential to be the ultimate collection of unusual time signatures and be being held back Drewb18c1 (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "It was a prime example of wikipedia's founding principle of being a collective body of knowledge.":

Don't you mean of the Internet's founding principle of being a hodge-podge of misinformation?

Re: "This is the internet remember?":

Precisely the problem.

Re: "if some idiot makes a misinformed contribution, there's ALWAYS somebody else out there who will be ready to point out just how wrong that original contributor was.":

And without sources the chances are ten-to-one that "somebody" will be twice as wrong. This is the Internet, remember? TheScotch (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "...because it's not the sort of thing that is easy to find on the internet....finding a website that backs this up is a whole other hurdle...":

It needs to be pointed out (repeatedly, apparently) that this sort of thing is the worst possible way to find a reference or a source. The best sources are not on the Internet, and the best Internet sources don't allow universal access. TheScotch (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The Ocean by Led Zeppelin

Intro and Chorus alternate between 4/4 and 7/8, as stated on this website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.25.246 (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

CCS song in 5/4?

There must be a Collective Consciousness Society song in 5/4 or mostly 5/4. Does anyone know?--Ratzer (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• No. But there is a big ol' honkin' line at the top of the page telling you not to add ANYTHING to this list unless it's sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And what does your big ol' honkin' line (that I still don't see anywhere - maybe I'm blind) have to do with my question here? But relax, I'll restore my edit, and I'll find a source for you.--Ratzer (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I saw it in edit mode. But next time start a new paragraph instead of discussing your stuff here where ask a question about a CCS song.--Ratzer (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Stravinsky

There are explicit "unusual" (i.e., non 4/4) time signatures in almost every bar of Stravinsky. Since the list is organized by signature, what's a plan?Shlishke (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the phrase "work in unusual time signature" seems plain enough. If a work is exclusively or predominantly in one unusual signature, and this is verifiable by a reliable source, then it belongs in this list. If not, then not. Few if any of Stravinsky's scores meet this criterion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Rhythm and Meter; Early Music (very long): note conclusion

Some of the problems above are the extremely difficult distinction between time and meter--still "unsolved," a state of affairs that perhaps will never be solved.

Since we certainly can't make a dissertation (let alone making any sense), I suggest that a graf or two boiling down the following points be made. The greatest metric shift in Western music, with dance music and some frottola, hymns, and chansons leading the way--a shift, one might add, without which this Wiki entry would not exist--is the development of a rhythmically stable work.

Around 1600 a dramatic change took place in Western rhythmic notation: a shift from mensural practices which had been in place since the 14th century to modern, orthochronic notation in which the proportional relationship between any two symbols in the notational system remains constant. As Rastall (A1982) observes, this was not accomplished all at once, and indeed rests had been orthochronic since the end of the 13th century. The emergence of modern rhythmic and metric notation involved more than the streamlining of proportional possibilities down to the binary logic now in use.

As to "early music" (again, that in general before 1600), two points are worth considering:

• The rules of counterpoint also played a part: perfect consonances fell on strong beats in medieval polyphony (with imperfect consonances, but not dissonances, also permitted to do so in Netherlandish Renaissance polyphony). However, the treatment of dissonance in Palestrina’s time is also regulated in terms of accent: passing and incidental dissonances fall regularly on weak beats, whereas syncopated dissonances fall equally regularly on strong beats; this style displays a certain restraint in its employment of accent. By the early 17th century, secular vocal and instrumental polyphony was employing a regular alternation of strong and weak beats, although free rhythm was still prevalent in solo song and chant; even in Bach’s fugues the rhythm remains free from any slavery to the bar-line.

• The bulk of the following excerpt, on Elliot Carter, serves two puporse. Naturally it is geared toward issues I brought up in my "Stravinsky" article above. But its last line can conviently serve as a segue to the issue of the "non-4/4" pieces.

On a larger scale, the use of constantly changing patterns of rhythm and/or shifting metres adds another level of structural complexity. Elliott Carter has developed and described the technique of ‘metric modulation’, which he uses in his percussion piece Canaries [ex. ref. del).] Of this excerpt Carter writes that ‘to the listener, this passage should sound as if the left hand keeps up a steady beat throughout the passage … while the right-hand part, made up of F-natural and C-sharp, goes through a series of metric modulations, increasing its speed a little at each change’ (F1977, p.349). Canaries has its antecedents in the use of a series of proportional changes in mensuration in pre-tonal music.

Now, as to music before 1600. I'm not going to go into Christian chant, which serves no purpose here. Essentially, the art music of the time has it's rhythm declared by a progression of articulation, essentially where the dissonant contrapuntal-harmonic coincidences are and the breathing points of the word underlay. The phrases--are clearly understandable as such, and that understanding of them is notatable. Here comes the hard part. To the performers of the time, accentual stress of the sequence of phrases--the series of accents, which nowadays determine the time signature (leaving aside exceptions of articulation and, famously, jazz), can be marvelously and seamlessly ignored: the music notation had no time bars whatsoever; rather, the conductor would provide a constant down-up motion of his hands, known as a tactus. So, was all the music "down up"? No because of the fluidity of the notation then--what is known as mensural notation--with which the shifts in accent--the meter, are easily marked and read out. That's why serious performance groups learn early notation, because its depiction of the music can be read easily and clearly.

Now comes the punchline: Modern transcriptions of early "art" music, in order to mark these shifts of accentuation, should have have a mind-boggling number of written-down meters. Most singing transcriptions are, were they to be followed as true 4/4 works as marked, make no sense. Rarely, in some of the scholarly editons (no cite handy) that attempt to capture the correct performance of the works, a mind-boggling number of completely different meters appear, changing at every bar and, as a real mind-blower, the meters change differently for different altos, tenos, etc.

So should these little cuties all go in the List of musical works in unusual time signatures? Obviously not. A blurb is needed.

Thanks for reading this. Shlishke (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Clearly, the situation which you mention (what is sometimes referred to as "motet style") is not appropriate to the question of unusual metre, and this position scarcely requires such a long essay to justify. Dance music is the most obvious example, but there is quite a lot of other literature, primarily in triple or duple metres, of course. There are documented examples of unusual but quite regular metres already in the list, such as the 11/4 In Nomine by John Bull.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I did not mention the motet style (pre 1200)--if that is in fact what you referred to--and their equal rhythms in 3--"of perfection" (the number of the holy trinity). These are works with a pronounced equally divided rhythm and therefore would have a "regular" (in the modern sense) meter sign. Unfortunately, such "motet style" in music went the way of the dinosaur by 1250.

You write

Dance music is the most obvious example, but there is quite a lot of other literature, primarily in triple or duple metres, of course.

As I said, correct. Please see my third sentence above. Also, regarding a small citation/proof you mention in your short reply. John Bull's works hover about 1600 (see Fitzwilliam Virginal Book).

As to your major misunderstanding of the essay: I am purposely am not discussing Notre-Dame "motet style" in the sense that I think you use it, or in any sense at all of the the term.

Rather, I am discussing works in the flourishing contrapuntal style that dominated art music from about 1300 on. Issues relating to their meter and notation, in the context of this Wiki entry, are germane and unaddressed.---Shlishke (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, "motet style" (or "texture") is sometimes used (e.g., in Martha Feldman, City Culture and the Madrigal at Venice (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995); Lothar Hoffmann-Erbrecht, "Heinrich Finck in Polen und Litaue", in Die Musik der Deutschen im Osten und ihre Wechselwirkung mit den Nachbarn: Ostseeraum--Schlesien--Böhmen/Mähren--Donauraum (Bonn: Schröder, 1994)) to describe precisely what you were talking about: the rhythmically fluid textures in polyphonic music (not exclusively church music) from roughly the middle of the 15th century until about 1600. Subsequently, the "new motet style" refers to the more chordally oriented church music of the 17th century. Later still, there is the "continuo motet style" of the late-17th and early-18th centuries.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes. You may wish to consult Richard L. Crocker's A History of Musical Style (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co,1966, reprinted in 1986 by Dover Books), a classic textbook still used frequently in first-year graduate classes. I particularly call your attention to pp. 175–200, and 217.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for extra songs

I suggest adding the following songs:

Huge list hidden so this talk page doesn't crash

9/4 or 9/8
(not simply compound triple meter)

(1722) Fugue 19 in A major and Prelude 20 in A minor from Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I, by J.S. Bach - 9/8 
(1744) Prelude 4 in C# minor and Prelude 7 in Eb major from Well-Tempered Clavier, Book II, by J.S. Bach - 9/8 
(1800) Piano Sonata No. 11, Op. 22, 2nd movement, by Ludwig van Beethoven - 9/8 
(1802) Piano Sonata No. 16, Op. 31 No. 1, 2nd movement, by Ludwig van Beethoven - 9/8 
(1873) Blessed Assurance by Fanny J. Crosby and Phoebe Knapp - 9/8 
(1890) Suite bergamasque, 3rd movement (Claire de Lune), by Claude Debussy - 9/8 
(1964) "Hat and Beard" by Eric Dolphy - 4+3+2 
(1972) "Apocalypse in 9/8" by Genesis - penultimate movement of the "Supper's Ready" suite - rhythm section plays a 9/8 riff as 3+2+4, organ solo plays polymetrically over this (sometimes 4/4, sometimes 7/4, etc.) 
(1972) "Vital Transformation" by Mahavishnu Orchestra 
(1974) "Riding The Scree" by Genesis - 9/4. 
(1975) "Cosmic Strut" by Mahavishnu Orchestra 
(1975) "Stretch" by Michal Urbaniak 
(1976) "Time to Kill" by Horslips 
(1976) "Involuntary Bliss" by Alphonso Johnson 
(1977) "Intergalactic Strut" by Colosseum II 
(1979) "Morale" by The Human League 
(1979) "Watermelon In Easter Hay" Frank Zappa 
(1983) "Ninth House" by L. Subramaniam 
(1984) "Shadowdance" by Shadowfax - 2+2+3+2. 
(1988) "Slipstream" by Bela Fleck 
(1988) "Accra" by Geoff Keezer - 9/8 
(1993) "The Philosopher" by Death 
(1996) "Never The Machine Forever" by Soundgarden 
(1996) "Introduction" and "Coda Maestoso In F(Flat) Minor" by Earth - essentially the same song 
(1996) "Mary Jane" by Alanis Morissette (album Jagged Little Pill) 
(1996) "I Hung My Head" by Sting- played as 5/8 + 2/4 (or 2+3+2+2). 
(1996) "Die Eier Von Satan" by Tool - 5+4. 
(1997) "The Tourist" by Radiohead - excluding one bar in 12/8. 
(2000) "Tehlikeli Madde" by The Trey Gunn Band 
(2005) "Beartown" by Polar Bear (2+2+3+2) 
(2005) "Baby Satan" by Dog Fashion Disco 
(2005) "Saltwater Fountain" by The Junior Varsity 
(2006) "Pathos Ate Bathos" by Shooting At Unarmed Men 
(2007) "FPAC Sucks" by Randi Bean 

Partially in 9/2
(2006) "Polydipsia" by Kill Your Ex - chorus is in 5/2+ 4/2= 9/2[1] 
(2007) "Mind Control" by Lifeless Animation - post-intro is in 5/2+4/2[2] 

Partially in 9/4 or 9/8
(1958) "Blue Rondo à la Turk" by the Dave Brubeck Quartet, from the album Time Out - Played as 2+2+2+3 and 3+3+3, with some alternating sections of 4/4)[1] 
(1970) "Now More than Ever" by Chicago - near the end of the song, the brass plays a march-like melody with alternating bars of 5/4 then 4/4. 
(1971) "In Nomine Patris", 6th movement of Mass by Leonard Bernstein 
(1972) "Dancing Madly Backwards (On A Sea Of Air)" by Captain Beyond - outro in 9/8 
(1973) "Birds of Fire" by Mahavishnu Orchestra - theme and solos in 9/8 (subdivided 4+5 except for the drums, which have a 3+3+3 pattern) 
(1974) "Day of The Eagle" by Robin Trower, certain sections in 4/4 but phrased as 9/8 + 7/8 
(1975) "Scatterbrain" by Jeff Beck - intro and main riff are in 9/8 
(1975) "Song for America" by Kansas - instrumental section in second half. 
(1980) "Machine Messiah" by Yes - the middle instrumental break is in 9/4 
(1982) "Grendel" by Marillion - penultimate movement of this 17:15 long song (an homage to Genesis' Supper's Ready section "Apocalypse in 9/8"). 
(1984) "En Force" by Queensrÿche - intro in 9/4, phrased as 4+4+1. 
(1985) "Perfect Strangers" by Deep Purple - only the outro and bridge) Played as 4/4 & 5/4. 
(1986) "Jesus Saves" by Slayer - 0:50 into the song. 
(1987) "It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)" by R.E.M. - intro only (4/4 + 5/4). 
(1988) "Candle" by Sonic Youth - four measures of asymmetrically divided 9/8, 0:45 into the song, after the guitar intro. 
(1990) "9 Over Reggae" by Jack DeJohnette and Pat Metheny (9/4) 
(1991) "Refrigerator Car" by the Spin Doctors 
(1991) "Why Go" by Pearl Jam - intro, 1 measure only 
(1991) "No More Tears" by Ozzy Osbourne - outro only. 
(1991) "Paragon Belial" by Darkthrone - intro only. 
(1994) "5 Minutes Alone" by Pantera - verse 
(1994) "Black Hole Sun" by Soundgarden - solo and outro in 9/8. 
(1994) "She Likes Surprises" by Soundgarden 
(1994) "Pretty Penny" by Stone Temple Pilots 
(1995) "One Big Mob" by Red Hot Chili Peppers - outro 
(1995) "The Gentle Art Of Making Enemies" by Faith No More 
(1995) "Demanufacture" by Fear Factory 
(1996) "Wind Below" by Rage Against the Machine 
(1996) "Napalm Brain" by DJ Shadow 
(1996) "Knotted Twig" by Skrew 
(1997) "It's So You" by The Dismemberment Plan- 9/8 and 4/4 alternating. 
(1997) "The Accolade" by Symphony X - intro in 9/8. 
(1998) "Smoke And Mirrors" by Symphony X - pre-choruses contain pattern of three bars of 9/8 and one bar of 4/4. 
(1998) "Roses in Water" by Sunny Day Real Estate - most of the verses 
(1999) "Somewhat Damaged" by Nine Inch Nails - entire song except the outro which is in 4/4. 
(2000) "The Face in the Embryo" by The Blood Brothers - parts in 9/4 
(2001) "Fall" by American Head Charge - choruses in 9/4, the rest is in 4/4. 
(2001) "Citizen Erased" by Muse band 
(2001) "The One" by Shakira 
(2002) "Gasoline" by Audioslave - end. 
(2003) "The Crowing" by Coheed and Cambria - during the breakdown in the middle is in 9/4. Most of the song is 4/4 with the exception of 4/4, 4/4, 2/4 alternation just before 9/4 section. 
(2003) "The Passage by Ephel Duath 
(2003) "Oh Detroit, Lift Up Your Weary Head! (Rebuild! Restore! Reconsider!)" by Sufjan Stevens 
(2003) "The Kids Are Going To Love It" by Million Dead - intro and verses. 
(2003) "Panic Attack" by Finger Eleven - pre-Chorus. 
(2004) "Open Your Eyes" by Brianna Cara 
(2004) "Just Like the Movies" by Regina Spektor - most bars of verse in 9/8, some in 12/8. 
(2004) "Paper Champion" by Oceansize - intro in 4/4. 
(2004) "Some Sweet Nothingness" by Gruvis Malt - 1st verse in 6/8. 
(2004) "A Bid Farewell" by Killswitch Engage 
(2005) "Beast and the Harlot" by Avenged Sevenfold - intro and outro. 
(2005) "Sister Jack" by Spoon - final 30 seconds. 
(2005) "The Start of Something Beautiful" by Porcupine Tree [2] 
(2006) "Colony of Birchmen" by Mastodon 
(2006) "Jambi" by Tool - except guitar solo, which is in 6/4. 
(2006) "10,000 Days (Wings Pt 2)" by Tool 
(2006) "This Mute Tide" by Paper Champion - chorus. 
(2006) "Everything" by Dawn Xiana Moon - bridge. 
(2006) "Ocean in the Sky" by Flux - bridge. 
(2006) "Assassin (Grand Omega Bosses) by Muse Band 
(2006) "Tetragrammaton" by The Mars Volta - chorus. 
(2007) "Imram" by Era Vulgaris- contains repeated theme which is altered from 4/4 base into 9/4 and subsequently 5/4 variations. 
(2007) "Straight Lines" by Silverchair 
(2007) "Humuhumunukunukuapua'a" by High School Musical 2 

10/4
(1968) "Wanderlove" by Mason Williams 
(1971) "Playing in the Band" by Bob Weir and/or the Grateful Dead (4+4+2) 
(2000) "Everything in Its Right Place" by Radiohead 
(2004) "Destroy Glass Castles" by Venetian Snares 
(2004) "Bonivital" by Venetian Snares 
(2004) "Looks Good (But You Looked Away)" by Helio Sequence 
(2004) "Vida" by Venetian Snares 
(2005) "Storm" by Björk 
(2006) "Grammy Family" by DJ Khaled featuring Kanye West, Common, John Legend, and Consequence 

Partially in 10/4
(1971) "Perpetual Change" by Yes – the intro riff 
(1981) "Camera Eye" by Rush 
(1992) "Post Mortal Ejaculation" by Cannibal Corpse – One quite prominent, more higher pitched section is in 10/4 
(1993) "Die Like Someone" by Eve's Plum (verse) 
(1996) "Volcano" by The Presidents of the United States of America 
(1998) "Skin" by Madonna 
(2000) "Sparks Are Gonna Fly" by Catherine Wheel (4 + 4 + 2 through most of the song, small breaks of 4/4 and 6/4) 
(2002) "Crying at the Aquarium" by The Octopus Project (all in 10/4 except for middle break in 4/4) 
(2004) "Turn It Up" by Ashanti (some parts of the verse) 
(2004) "Safety Train" by Gruvis Malt 
(2004) "Alpha Beta Gaga" by Air. (whistle part only). 
(2005) "Speak Easy" by 311 (verse only) 
(2005) "Cygnus...Vismund Cygnus" by The Mars Volta. The last parts of the song ("Con Safo") with drums are in 10/4. 

10/8
(sometimes written as 5/4, but expressed as 3+3+2+2 or 2+2+3+3)

(1971) "The Dance of Maya" by Mahavishnu Orchestra although changes to 20/8 during the solos (6+6+6+2). 
(1971) "Tarkus" by Emerson Lake and Palmer (the basic keyboard riff is in 10/8) (4+3+3). 
(1973 - 2001) All the Larks' Tongues in Aspic pieces by King Crimson (with exceptions in a few riffs). 
(1993) "Yoru Furu Yuki" by Takehiko Tada (expressed as 6+4) 
(2001) "The Patient" by Tool 
(2001) "Compensate" by Space Like Alice 
(2002) "Hangin' Tree" by Queens of the Stone Age 
(2002) "Hym" by Isis 
(2003) "I Know Where the Canaries and Crows Go" by The Blood Brothers 
(2004) "Achilles (All 3)" by Love Outside Andromeda 
(2004) "Tongue Like a Tether" by Love Outside Andromeda 
(2005) "Station Approach" by Elbow (played as 4+4+2) 
(2005) "Hold Fast Hope" by Thrice 
(2005) "Contain" by Venetian Snares 
(2006) "Ignoring all the Detours" by +/- 

Partially in 10/8
(1972) "Thick as a Brick" by Jethro Tull - excerpts. 
(1980) "Touch and Go" by The Cars 
(1981) "YYZ" by Rush - Morse Code intro in 10/8, phrased as (1st bar) 3/16 + 7/16 and (2nd bar) 4/16 + 4/16 + 2/16. 
(1991) "No Pain For Cakes" by The Lounge Lizards - the middle of the song is in 10/8 (2-2-3-3) 
(1992) "Split Open and Melt" by Phish - the chorus and Jam are in 10/8 
(1994) "Endless Dream: Silent Spring" by Yes - piano intro in 10/8, 5/4 after band kicks in 
(1996) "Time and Motion" by Rush - parts of the song follow a 10/8 section of 3-3-2-2 (though it is shown as 5/4) 
(1997) "Running" by 311 
(1999) "Just Like You Imagined" by Nine Inch Nails - entire song except intro (before the bass line begins), which is 4/4. 
(2002) "Lies, Lies, Lies" by Toni Braxton - final part of the song. 
(2003) "Childhood Dreams" by Nelly Furtado - alternates with 12/8. 
(2003) "She's My Rushmore" by Every Time I Die - alternates with 9/8 and 4/4. 
(2002) "Gravity Eyelids" by Porcupine Tree - the second half of the instrumental part starting at 5:12 is partially in 10/8 timing as well as a few other time signatures. 
(2005) "Music for a Nurse" by Oceansize 

Partially in 10/16
(2005) "Mother and Child Divided" by Porcupine Tree [3] 

11/4
(1962) "Eleven Four" by the Dave Brubeck Quartet 
(1982) "Dirt" by Mission of Burma. Can also be heard as a measure of 4/4, a measure of 3/4 and two measures of 2/4. 
(2004) "Huge Chrome Peach" by Venetian Snares 
(2005) "Happy Jammy" by Dave Holland Big Band 
(2006) "Right In Two" by Tool (expressed as 3+3+3+2 in verses, 3+2+2+4 in chorus, and 3+2+3+3 in a section of the breakdown, where it could be said the song changes to 11/8)) 

Partially in 11/4
(1874) "Promenade" from Pictures at an Exhibition by Modest Mussorgsky. The first portion of the piece is written as an alternation of 5/4 and 6/4 bars. The Promenade is used many times in the suite in different forms. This rhythm applies to the first Promenade at the very beginning of the piece. The somewhat 'unsteady' rhythm has been interpreted as a musical interpretation of Mussorgsky's own unsteady gait. 
(1967) "I Say A Little Prayer" by Burt Bacharach and Hal David, sung by Dionne Warwick - the chorus repeats 4+4+3. 
(1968) "Spanish Caravan" by the Doors - opening part of electric guitar is 3+3+5 
(1971) "Man Erg" by Van der Graaf Generator - the riff which comes after the first two verses is in 11/4 (5 + 6) 
(1972) "Awakening" by Mahavishnu Orchestra - unison lick (4/4 + 7/8 + 7/8) 
(1974) "The Gates of Delirium" by Yes - victory march theme, starting at 12'51" (4/4 + 4/4 + 3/4). 
(1976) "Herandnu" (midsection and outro) by Weather Report 
(1978) "Shadow Dancing" by Andy Gibb (break 6/4 + 5/4) 
(1978) "Incantations part 1" by Mike Oldfield - opening and closing theme is 6+5 
(1980) "Does it Really Happen" by Yes chorus is 3+3+5, rest of the song is in 4/4. 
(1987) "I'm Running" by Yes 
(1989) "Nothingface" by Voivod 
(1995) "Titanic" by Tidal Wave - main riff 
(1998) "Freedom Of Speech" by Liquid Tension Experiment 
(1998) "Paradigm Shift" by Liquid Tension Experiment - middle section and ending 
(2001) "City of Angels" by the Flower Kings. The first half of the song is in 11/4, the remainder is in 3/4. 
(2001) "Jove malle de Mone / Feed Your Mama's Meter (Remix 2001)" by Estradasphere (5/4 + 6/4) 
(2003) "Stream of Consciousness" by Dream Theater 
(2004) "A Great Work of Fiction" by Gruvis Malt 
(2004) "There will be no morning copy" by Clann Zu The first half of the song is in 11/4 
(2004) "You Should Be Ashamed, Seamus" by McLusky The ending only which has a bar in 5/4 followed by a bar in 6/4 
(2005) "Take, Take, Take" The White Stripes (chorus only) 
(2006) "Mudlark" by Kill Your Ex has a part grouped in 5/4 + 6/4 
(2007) "Guys Like Me" by Eric Church - intro and verse 
(2007) "High Maintenance Woman" by Toby Keith - verse 
(2007) "Constant Motion" by Dream Theater 

11/8
(1968) "The Eleven" by Grateful Dead[4] 
(1969) "Arjen's Bag" by John McLaughlin 
(1971) "Follow Your Heart" by John McLaughlin 
(1974) "Birdfingers" by The Eleventh House 
(1974) "Wings of Karma" by Mahavishnu Orchestra 
(1975) "Lonely Street" by Kansas 
(1979) "Outside Now" by Frank Zappa. (played with a 6/8 & 5/8 feel) 
(1983) "Tink Walks Amok" by Frank Zappa (bass part is 4+4+3) 
(1991) "Eleven" by Primus 3+3+3+2 
(1992) "Stash" by Phish from the album A Picture of Nectar (bridge is 5+6) 
(1996) "Labyrinth" by Art Rock Circus from rock opera Heavens Cafe 
(1997) "Not Home Yet" by Steven Curtis Chapman 
(1997) "Kumi Na Moja" by Simon Phillips. (Title means eleven in Swahili) 
(1997) "Duchess and the Proverbial Mind Spread" by Primus 
(1999) "Vesuvius" by Frank Ticheli 
(1999) "Windows to the Soul" by Steve Vai 5+6 
(2000) "The Teacher" by Paul Simon 
(2001) "A Re-Occurring Dream" by Chicago Underground Quartet 
(2003) "Eyes Wide Open" by King Crimson 
(2004) "Leaven" by Proto-Kaw 
(2004) "Ion Divvy" by Venetian Snares 
(2004) "Bent Annick" by Venetian Snares 
(2005) "The Charm Offensive" by Oceansize 
(2005) "Stay" by Victor Wooten 
(2006) "Donut" by Venetian Snares 
(2006) "P" by Venetian Snares 
(2006) "Shoot Myself" by Venetian Snares 
(2007) "Herstory of Glory" by Do Make Say Think 

Partially in 11/8
(1969) "Whipping Post" by The Allman Brothers Band - intro and post-choruses in 11/8, rest of song in 12/8. 
(1972) "Words (Between the Lines of Age)" by Neil Young - arpeggio/guitar solo sections in 11/8, verses and choruses in 4/4 (or 8/8, relative to the 11/8) 
(1974) "Vision is a Naked Sword" by Mahavishnu Orchestra - mostly 11/8, with sections in 8/8. 
(1975) "Lonely Street" by Kansas - mostly 11/8 (6/8 + 5/8) with some measures of 12/8. 
(1976) "Nuclear Burn" by Brand X 
(1976) "Black Napkins" by Frank Zappa - towards the end of the song, measure of 4/8, followed by a measure of 3/8, followed by a measure of 11/8, then into free time for the rest of the song. 
(1977) "Awaken" by Yes - phrased as 4/4 + 3/8. 
(1978) "Circumstances" by Rush - instrumental bridge partially in 11/8 (5/8 + 3/4) 
(1997) "Losing a Whole Year" by Third Eye Blind - coda starting at 3'03" (5/8 + 6/8). 
(1982) "Losing It" by Rush - electric violin solo section in 11/8 (6/8 + 5/8). 
(1991) "Love Is a Fist" by Mr Bungle 
(1993) "You" by Radiohead - second half of the chorus riff (6/8 + 5/8) 
(1997) "Puedo Escribir" by Sixpence None the Richer - first two-thirds of the song in 11/8. 
(1997) "The Eyes of Medusa" by Symphony X - main riff in 11/8. 
(2000) "Cut Self Not" by Faraquet from the album The View From This Tower 
(2002) "Breathe" by Disturbed 
(2002) "Solitary Shell" by Dream Theater (beginning of instrumental section) 
(2002) "Aggression then Silence" by Gruvis Malt - the first half, "Aggression", is in 11/8. 
(2003) Bridge to "Happy with What You Have to Be Happy With" by King Crimson. The third and sixth lines are in 12/8. 
(2004) "Blood and Thunder" by Mastodon - the instrumental section. 
(2006) "Falling In Between" by Toto 
(2006) "Epiphany of a Mushroom Man" by Pomme De Chien - 1 bar near the drum solo is in 11/8. 
(2006) "Your Retrospective..." by Minus Won 
(2006) "Variation On Commemorative Transfiguration and Communion At Magruder Park" by Sufjan Stevens - right before the vocals come in. 
(2006) "Sawblades and Shotglasses" by Silent Epidemic - intro and revenge of intro. 
(2006) "A Revelation Part 2" by Flux - after 7 measures of 6/8 in each bar. 
(2006) "Rosetta Stoned" by Tool 
(2006) "Skeletons at the feast" by Spock's beard - Mostly 11/8, Some parts in 6/8 and 4/4. 

11/16
(1998) "Almost 12" by Béla Fleck and the Flecktones 
(1999) "Windows to the Soul" by Steve Vai 
(2003) "Pervs" by Venetian Snares & Hecate 

Partially in 11/16
(1979) "Dancin' Fool" by Frank Zappa - the "I may be totally wrong but..." sections at 1:55, 1:58, 2:56, 3:00, and 3:04) 
(2001) "Dapper Bandits" by Estradasphere has a few measures of 11/16 mixed in with 4/4 after "meanwhile, inside, the joint was jumping", the rest of the song is 3/4 and 4/4 
(2002) "Jubella" by Alexisonfire (part of a riff that is partially in 11/16, partially in 2/4, and partially in 4/4) 

13/4
(1997) "Characi" by Autechre 
(2004) "Li2CO3" by Venetian Snares 
(2004) "Happiness" by Paatos - 4/4 + 4/4 + 5/4 
(2004) "Boogie Stop Shuffle" by Charles Mingus, as played by Chris Potter 
(2005) "Let It Rain" by OK Go 
(2006) "XIII's Dub" by Venetian Snares. Hence the name; beat is divided as 4/8 + 3/8 + 4/8 + 3/8 + 4/8 + 3/8 + 5/8. 

Partially in 13/4
(1977) "Beltane" by Jethro Tull - lyrics of song are sung in 4, but 7/4 + 6/4 section is featured throughout the song. 
(1980) "Turn It On Again" by Genesis - most of song follows 6/4 + 7/4 pattern. 
(1980) "Freewill" by Rush- main riff before vocals (6/4 + 7/4), verse sections incorporate shifting 6/4, 7/4 and 8/4 patterns. 
(1986) "Norfair" by Hirokazu Tanaka composed for the NES game Metroid- 5 phrases in 13/4 (3/4 + 3/4 + 3/4 + 4/4), then 12 measures of 3/4 time. 
(1994) "The Becoming" by Nine Inch Nails- alternates 7/4 and 6/4. The bridge switches to 3/4. 
(1994) "Quiet" by Smashing Pumpkins 
(2001) "Just So You Know" by American Head Charge from their album The War Of Art - Song alternates between 6/4 and 7/4 throughout verses, establishes 4/4 during chorus. 
(2002) "March of the Fire Ants" by Mastodon - the intro is played in alternating measures of 7/4 and 6/4 
(2002) "The Great Debate" by Dream Theater - 2nd verse (4:18-4:47) 
(2005) "The Collector" by Nine Inch Nails- alternates 6/4 and 7/4. The chorus alternates two measures of 4/4 and a measure of 6/4 twice, then adds two 4/4 measures before resuming the (6/4 + 7/4) pattern. 
(2007) "Shortlist" by Craig Mattingley - verses consist of three lines of 13/4 followed by one of 16/4. 

13/8
(1977) "Heat in the Street" by Pat Travers (verses 4+4+5 and chorus 6+7) 
(1991) "Stars" by Bobby McFerrin and Yo-Yo Ma (from the album "Hush") 
(1992) "Thirteen" by Frank Zappa The thirteen is felt/syncopated with a 5/8 + 4/4 feel. 
(2000) "Son Song" by Soulfly 
(2001) "Food for thought" by The Breakfast 
(2001) "Strange" by Art Rock Circus from "A Passage to Clear" 
(2001) "What Deers May Come" by Estradasphere 
(2003) "Severance" by Portal 




Partially in 13/8
(1973) "I Wonder" by Mahavishnu Orchestra - released 1999. 
(1974) "Starless" by King Crimson - the fast sax solo part around the nine minute mark as well as the bass riff. 
(1976) "Robbery, Assault And Battery" by Genesis - the keyboard solo, a vocal section, and the guitar solo. 
(1976) "Childlike Faith in Childhood's End" by Van der Graaf Generator - most of the verses (eg. "As anti-matter sucks and pulses periodically"). 
(1980) "Jacob's Ladder" by Rush - guitar riff to climax of song (3/4 + 7/8). 
(1981) "Elektrik" by King Crimson - the rest of the song switches between two other meters, 4/8 and 7/8. 
(1981) "Skimbleshanks" from Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical Cats - the introduction and chorus. 
(1983) "Blinded" by Queensrÿche - the opening/closing riff, phrased as 3+3+3+2+2. 
(1992) "Into The Everflow" by Psychotic Waltz 
(1993) "Trapped in a Corner" by Death - the verse alternates between 7/8 and 6/8, forming an overall 13/8 feel. 
(1994) "SS-3" by Slayer - intro. 
(1997) "Jóga" by Björk - chorus, played as 4+4+4+1. 
(1999) "Will Bleed Amen" by Cardiacs - opening riff prior to the vocals (recurs throughout the piece). 
(1999) "Ars Moriendi" by Mr. Bungle 
(1999) "Vanity Fair" by Mr. Bungle - The middle synthesizer break alternates 12/8 and 13/8. 
(2000) "Sleeping Beauty" by A Perfect Circle - one bar of 6/8, then one bar of 7/8. The song shifts into 4/4 later and then back into 6/8. 
(2000) "Communion and The Oracle" by Symphony X - variation on instrumental pre-chorus at 4:12-4:15, phrased as 7/8 + 6/8 
(2001) "The American Seasons" by Mark O'Connor, recorded on the album The American Seasons 
(2002) "Wicked" by Symphony X - intro & first half of verses. 
(2002) "The Glass Prison" by Dream Theater - the first guitar part after the intro. 
(2003) "Super Happy Contest Wish Show" by Thee Armada from the album Why Can't I Remember Your Name - last instrumental bridge before outro. 
(2003) "Mommy's At The Grocery Store" by The Sick Lipstick - first part of song in 3/8 + 3/8 + 3/8 + 4/8, the rest is in 4/4. 
(2004) "Pistola" by Incubus 
(2004) "The Man With 100 Cells" by Stereolab - first half. 
(2005) "Good Day" by Tally Hall - verses. 
(2007) "Brittle" by Era Vulgaris bridge section only 
(2007) "Never Forget" by Tchoupchupacabra - A section in 13/8, the B sections are in 6/8 over 4/4 and the C section is in 4/4 

13/16
(1979) "Vlastar: An Encounter" by Billy Cobham 
(2002) "Interlude in Milan" by Planet X 
(2007) "tide" by Dustveil 

14/4
(1992) "Fountain" by PJ Harvey 

Partially in 14/4
(2007) "Just Might Have Her Radio On" by Trent Tomlinson - verses are consistently 4/4 + 2/4 + 4/4 + 4/4. 

14/8
(1983) "Midnight Sun" by Asia - intro and verses in 14/8 (phrased as 12/8 + 2/8), rest of song in 4/4. 

15/4
(1930) "Variations on a Hussar's Song" by Franz Schmidt (actually notated as 3 bars of 4/4 and one of 3/4) 
(1981) "Mother Tongues" by John McLaughlin 
(2005) "Happy Sad" by Gemma Hayes 
(1970) "Ostinato" by Herbie Hancock, off of his album Mwandishi. 
(1973) "Siberian Khatru" by Yes 

Partially in 15/4
(1970) "Uncle John's Band" by The Grateful Dead 
(1991) "Turtle Rock" by Bela Fleck and the Flecktones (the first section) 
(2006) "Vermicide" by The Mars Volta - the bridge after the second chorus. 

15/8
(c.130 AD) Hymn to the Sun by Mesomedes of Crete 
(1973) "Dream" by Mahavishnu Orchestra 
(1994) "Shit Towne" by Live 
(1994) "Limo Wreck" by Soundgarden 
(1997) "Snakes" by US3 
(2002) "A Giant Alien Force More Violent & Sick Than Anything You Can Imagine " by Venetian Snares 
(2003) "Komputer" by Jarcrew 
(2003) "The Leaning Tower" by Bela Fleck and the Flecktones 
(2004) "Canon" by Edgar Meyer 
(2004) "Bezcitny" by Venetian Snares 
(2005) "M367 (Out Of Our Hands)" by Revelation Theory 




Partially in 15/8
(1973) "The Ocean" by Led Zeppelin 
(1973) "Tubular Bells" by Mike Oldfield - intro in various patterns of 7/8 + 4/4. 
(1974) "Fracture" by King Crimson - sections with melody of 5+5+5 over rhythm of 7+8. 
(1975) "Marching Powder" by Tommy Bolin - guitar solo 
(1992) "Track 23" by Sublime 
(1992) "Learning to Live" by Dream Theater 
(1993) "Parry The Wind High, Low" by Frank Black - the chord progression at the end is in 15/8 while the drums are in 4/4. 
(1996) "(And again) Hamsterdam" by Fire Merchants - intro and first part in 15/8, middle 16/8. 
(1998) "Soil" by System of a Down - groupings of 7/8 and 8/8, intro, solo, and post-solo is in 4/4, outro is in 7/8. 
(1998) "Praha In Spring" by Ruins 
(1999) "Gyroscope" by The Dismemberment Plan- album: Emergency & I - alternates between common and 15/8. 
(2000) "Communion and The Oracle" by Symphony X - second half of first verse phrased 4/4 + 7/8 (2+3+2) 
(2000) "I Think I Lost My Headache" by Queens of the Stone Age 
(2005) "Never Fall Asleep On a Sunbed" by Captain Wow - verses and instrumental break. 
(2005) "Between the End and Where We Lie" by Thrice - played as 7/8 + 7/8 + 7/8 + 9/8 
(2005) "Cygnus...Vismund Cygnus" by The Mars Volta - part of the bridge. 5/8 + 6/8 + 4/8 
(chorus only).

(2006) "Not the Sun" by Brand New - verses and choruses. 
(2006) "Twilight" by Kill Your Ex - instrumental part in the middle is grouped 7/8 + 8/8. 
(2006) "And I Ran" by Flux (bridge) 
(2006) "Dry Tongue" by The Tunguska Event - intro. 
(2006) "New Blues Old Bruise" by John McLaughlin - main song separated by synth programming on the intro and outro. 
(2007) "I Still Believe" by Hayden Panettiere - pre-chorus. 
(2007) "Never Stop" by Hilary Duff - verses. 

15/16
(1998) "At Fate's Hand" by Fates Warning 

Partially in 15/16
(1983) "It's A Lovely Day" by Cardiacs - intro and middle eight in 15/16, verses in 4/4. 
(1986) "I Will Remember" by Queensrÿche - intro. 
(1987) "Perpetuum Mobile" by Penguin Cafe Orchestra - intro in 4/4, rest of the song in 15/16. 
(1990) "Silent Lucidity" by Queensrÿche - intro (plus a couple of bars early in the first verse), rest of the song is in 4/4. 
(1990) "Lucretia" by Megadeth - mostly in 4/4, but every 2nd measure of the verse's four-measure phrases is in 15/16. 
(2002) "Rope Ends" by Pain of Salvation - during the guitar solo in the middle of the song. 
(2003) "That'll Be The Day" by Streetlight Manifesto - saxophone solo break at beginning of song, the rest in 4/4. 
(2005) "Sacrificed Sons" by Dream Theater - rhythm during solos goes between 6/4, 15/16 and 4/4. 
(2006) "And I Ran" by Flux - bridge. 
(2006) "Eva Braun" by Canvas Pandora - instrumental 

16/4

16/8
(2001) "Pyramid Song" by Radiohead - Consistent pattern of 3+3+4+3+3 throughout. 

17/4
(1973) "Sister Andrea" by the Mahavishnu Orchestra 
(2004) "Chlorophyll" by Venetian Snares 

Partially in 17/4
(2005) "Fade Together" by Franz Ferdinand (Sections of 17/4 alternate with simple triple) 
(2006) "No Man's Land" by Sufjan Stevens (played as 4+4+4+5, chorus in common time) 

17/8
(2001) "Don't Put Marbles In Your Nose" by fictional band Scäb from Home Movies (7+4+6) 

Partially in 17/8
(1983) "Changes" by Yes - instrumental intro/ending phrased (8/16 + 6/16) + (8/16 + 6/16 + 6/16). 
(1991) "Miracle Of Life" by Yes - instrumental intro phrased 5/8 + 5/8 + 5/8 + 2/8 (or 5/8 + 5/8 + 7/8). 
(2000) "Communion and The Oracle" by Symphony X - first half of first verse phrased 12/8 + 5/8 
(2000) "Inferno" by Extol - Main riff 
(2003) "Next" by Béla Fleck and the Flecktones (bridge is in 4/4) 
(2006) "Tetragrammaton" by The Mars Volta - after first guitar solo. 8+9. 

17/16
(1974) "Spanish Moss: Savannah The Serene" by Billy Cobham 
(1993) "Psycho Shemps" by Tony Fredianelli (but played as 19/16 + 17/16 + 14/16 + 9/8) 
(2004) "Choosing to Drown" by Mike Keneally 
(2006) "Yak Party" by Yak 

Partially in 17/16
(1974) "Flash Flood" by Billy Cobham - entire track except intro 
(1983) "Garden Party" by Marillion - verses; difficult to hear at normal song tempo. 
(1995) "A Change of Seasons: I. The Crimson Sunrise" - section which is a gesture to "Erotomania" by Dream Theater. 
(2005) "Halo" by Porcupine Tree - after the second chorus it switches from 4/4 to 17/16, measured by the band as alternating regularly between 9/8 and 8/8. 
(2005) "Open Car" by Porcupine Tree - verses in 17/16 
(2005) "Freak Show Excess" by Steve Vai 
"COILY" by "The Ozric Tentacles" from the album "Waterfall Cities" starts in 17/16 and changes to many others throughout. 

18/8
(1973) "Birds of Fire" by Mahavishnu Orchestra - guitar plays 5+5+5+3 while drums play 6+6+6. Violin from time to time plays 3+3+2+3+3+2+2. From the book: John McLaughlin and the Mahavishnu Orchestra (out of print). 

19/8
(1966) "33 222 1 222" by Don Ellis Orchestra 
(1969) "After the Flood" by Van der Graaf Generator - intro only. 
(1969) "Binky's Dream" by John McLaughlin 
(1970) "Cat Food" by King Crimson 
(1973) "Hidden Shadows" by Herbie Hancock 
(1973) "L'Auberge du Sanglier" by Caravan - "A Hunting We Shall Go" segments at the beginning and at the end, counted {3+3+2+2}+{3+2+2+2}, also reckoned as {5/4}+{9/8}. 
(1994) "19" by Laundry 
(1997) "Downpour" by Converge 
(2004) "Nineteen 1319" by Venetian Snares 
(2005) "Damn That Jello!" by Abstrakt Collision 
(2006) "Hevy Revy" by the Lawless Percussion and Jazz Ensemble - actually notated as 5/4 + 9/8 alternation. 
(2006) "6086555670238378989670371734243169622657830773351885970528324860512791691264" (from "The Sublime Numbers") by Matthew Prins - (7/8 + 7/8 + 5/8), 
(2007) "Chicken Sacrifice" by Vomitron 

19/16
(1973) "Celestial Terrestrial Commuters" by Mahavishnu Orchestra. From the book: John McLaughlin and the Mahavishnu Orchestra (out of print). 
(1979) "Hell's Bells" by Bill Bruford - 7+7 + 5/16, drums play 7/8 + 5/16. 
(1979) "Keep it Greasy" by Frank Zappa - the vamp in the end of the song is played 7+5 + 7/16. 
(1999) "Home" by Dream Theater - The outro section with sitar is counted in 19/16 (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 123) as described on Mike Portnoy's Liquid Drum Theater instructional DVD 
(2002) "330" by Actual Time 
(2002) "Cut That City" by The Mars Volta 
(2006) "Day of the Baphomets" by The Mars Volta contains an angular guitar passage in 19/16 punctuated by bass and drums. The passage is directly prior to a Latin percussion section in 4/4 with clave polyrhythms. 

20/8
(1972) "The Dance of Maya" by Mahavishnu Orchestra 
(1975) "Lila's Dance" by Mahavishnu Orchestra - midsection 
(1991) "Either/Or End Up > Down" by Pete Levin 
(2003) "Take the Veil Cerpin Taxt" by The Mars Volta... the Robotalk solo that starts at 4:11 is in 20/8, each measure starts with a splash hit. 

20/16

Partially in 20/16
(2003) "Go to Sleep. (Little Man Being Erased.)" by Radiohead 

21/08
(1978) "In the Dead of Night" by U.K. - post chorus section 
(1996) "The Dark" by Art Rock Circus from rock opera Heavens Cafe 
(2000) "Communion and The Oracle" by Symphony X - intro is 10/8 + 11/8 

21/16
(1974) "The Gates Of Delirium" by Yes - section between 10'23" and 12'07" 
(1993) "Uroboric Forums" by Cynic 
(2000) "2116" by Planet X 

23/4
(1930) "Variations on a Hussar's Song" by Franz Schmidt (actually notated as 5 bars of 4/4 and one of 3/4) 
(2007) "The Day After Perfection" by Twilight Reign (notated as 6+6+6+5) 
(1993) "You" by Radiohead (notated as 3 bars of 6/4 and one of 5/4) 

23/16
(1998) "New Millennium Cyanide Christ" by Meshuggah. The drum set beat is in 4/4 timing, but the timing of the two bass drums is in 23/16 timing, just like the guitars. 
(2005) "Aamelotasis" by Venetian Snares. as 7/16 + 7/16 + 9/16. 
(2006) "Weapons of the Conqueror" by Minus Won. 
(2006) "Odd Poetry" by Dhafer Youssef, as 10/16 + 10/16 + 3/16 

25/8
(2001) "The Promise" by Art Rock Circus from "A Passage to Clear" 
(2007) "Paradise Lost" by Symphony X from "Paradise Lost" 

25/16
(2000) "Cruel Whole" by Venetian Snares 
(2003) "Memory Daydreams Lapses" by O.S.I. 
(2006) "Beverly's Potatoe Orchestra" by Venetian Snares 

27/4
Parts of Jethro Tull's "Witches Promise" could be analysed as in 27, divided 9(3). This distinction may be dubious as there is a fine line between 27/4 and nine bars of 3/4. 

27/8
(1975) "Cosmic Strut" by Mahavishnu Orchestra - midsection (14/8 + 13/8) 
(2002) "Remember" by Disturbed - (verse) 8/8 + 5/4 + 6/4 + 8/8. 
(2005) "Never Gonna Kill Us" by The Smashup 

28/8
(2005) "Octavarium" by Dream Theater; three separate "breaks" during "Full Circle" consists of once-repeated four-measure phrases of 7/8, 3/4, 7/8 again, and 4/4. One such example can be heard around 16:00 in the album version. 

29/4
(2004) "Sultry" from Private Dances by Kyle Gann 

31/16
(2006) "Your Neighborhood Spaceman" by Peeping Tom 

33/16
(1976) "Herandnu" by Weather Report - main theme 6+6+6+6+9 
(1978) "Fake Paradise" by Jean-Luc Ponty - verses 9+9+9+6 

41/16
(1994) "Desert Sonata" by Kyle Gann 

Partially in a single unusual time signature
(These are songs not listed in any of the "partial" sections above)


6/8
(2005) "Cygnus...Vismund Cygnus" by The Mars Volta. There is a riff in the song that goes from 9/16 to 6/8 to 2/4. 

7/16
(1984) "The Attitude Song" by Steve Vai The main theme is in 7/16, with many changes between 2/8, 2/4, 3/4, and 4/4 

9/16
(2005) "Cygnus...Vismund Cygnus" by The Mars Volta. There is a riff in the song that goes from 9/16 to 6/8 to 2/4. 

14/4
"Santacide" by Toadies (4 + 4 + 4 + 2, 4/4 chorus) 
(1971) "Perpetual Change" by Yes - sections played as 3+3+3+3+2. 
(1998) "Champagne from a Paper Cup" by Death Cab for Cutie approx. half the song in 14/4, rest in common 
(2006) "Civil Sin" by Boy Kill Boy 

14/8
(1959) "Three to Get Ready" - by The Dave Brubeck Quartet from the album Time Out. The first 4 measures of the song are in 9/8 (3+3+3) and the rest of the song is in 14/8 (3+3+4+4). 
(1997) "Bowling for Midgets" by Nuclear Rabbit 
(2005) "Fall Away" by The Fray 
(2006) "Like A Coal Mine Canary" by Robespierre 

15/4
(1968) "Deserted Cities of the Heart" by Cream - verses in 4+4+3+4. 
(1973) "Amazona" by Roxy Music middle VIII. 
(1988) "Suite Sister Mary" by Queensrÿche - intro and Latin chant, phrased as 4+4+4+3. 
(1995) "Possum Kingdom" by The Toadies - all but chorus. 
(1997) "Torn" by Creed - instrumental and bridge. 
(1998) "April Ethereal" by Opeth - instrumental section near the end of the song. The rest is in 12/8 and 4/4. 
(2006) "This Place is Painted Red" by Deas Vail - chorus is 8/4 + 7/4. 

18/4
(2003) "Endless Sacrifice" by Dream Theater - the two main verses and the intro interchange 4+4+4+6 and 4+4+4+7 (19/4). 

18/8
(2003) "This Dying Soul" by Dream Theater - final two main verses are played as two measures of 15/16 and 21/16. 

21/4
(2006) "Sound of Your Voice" by Barenaked Ladies has an intro consisting of 6+6+6+3, then a tempo change, and the rest of the song is in 4/4. 

21/16
(1999) "New Years Eve" by Pain of Salvation (opening riff) 

23/4
(2005) "Does Your Face Hurt? No? 'Cause It's Killin' Me!!!" by Bomb the Music Industry! is in 23/4 during the last verse, and synth breakdown. It is played as 12/4 + 11/4. 

23/8
(1986) "Surgical Strike" by Queensrÿche - the intro, played as 6+5+6+6. 
(2004) "Coke Ajax" by Venetian Snares 
(2005) "Aamelotasis" by Venetian Snares 
(2005) "Ghost Love Score" by Nightwish (the beginning most notably, as well as a few other points in the song. the rest is in 12/8 and 4/4.) 
(2005) "Cygnus...Vismund Cygnus" by The Mars Volta 

29/8
(2000) "The 29/8 Steps" by Outside (middle section is in 4/4) 

29/16
(2000) "Death Blooms" by Mudvayne (middle breakdown) 
(2004) "Spiraling Into Depression" by Into Eternity (breakdown part) 

Is this okay? CrazeDaze (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Is all of this a joke? Timneu22 (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If not a joke, then the most eloquent testimony so far for verification of every entry in this list, and an indictment of the idea that "anyone can tell". For example, CrazeDaze has correctly identified all of the 9/8 movements in Bach's WTC, but he is dead wrong to claim they are "not simply compound triple meter", for that is exactly what they are. The same is true for the Beethoven and Debussy example he cites. Even taking this preposterous list at face value, CrazeDaze's rhythmic sense is obviously in need of considerable development. I suspect he is unable to differentiate between syncopation and an underlying basic meter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I made the list hidden so that this page doesn't crash. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What about three beats to the bar?

While three beats to the bar are not considered an unusual time signature, it seems much more rare in pop, rock, etc. than the widespread four beats measure. If there is no separate article on those, should one be started? I would like to start a list of songs that apparently have three beats to the bar, and I would appreciate further hints (such as existing lists):

• That's How Strong My Love Is
• Time Is On My Side
• I Got The Blues
• Little Red Rooster
• Don't Let Me Down (Bad Company)
• Night Time Is the Right Time
• Love Reign O'er Me
• Oh! Darling
• Everyday's Torture (Golden Earring)
• Since I've Been Loving You
• Colour My World (?)
• Cry Baby (performed by Janis Joplin)
• Kozmic Blues (Janis Joplin)
• Get It While You Can (performed by Janis Joplin)

• Summertime (performed by Janis Joplin)
• Amazing Grace

Maybe there are many more, but those are the ones I know and could think of, for now.--Ratzer (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I should add that I'm not asking about classical waltz pieces, which of course are also three beats to the bar.--Ratzer (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The traditional Scottish folk song My Bonnie Lies over the Ocean has also three beats. As arranged by Tony Sheridan and the Beat Brothers, the three beats are only in the short introductory part of the song. For the most part, the rearranged song was converted to a four-beat-measure.--Ratzer (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I found a few more 3/4 or 3/8 songs listet in an older version of this article: [1]. Given the shortness of this list, three beats to the bar does indeed seem unusual, at least by the number of songs.--Ratzer (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how 3/4 or 3/8 is unusual at all -- and I don't see how "three beats to the bar" is any different from a waltz. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's unusual in that it is comparatively rare in rock/pop music. Do you know a "waltz" of The Who, except Love Reign O'er Me, or one of The Beatles, except Oh! Darling? Well I found at least four performed by The Rolling Stones, but how much is that among the 300 or 400 different songs they performed? Besides, I haven't heard anything call I Got the Blues a waltz. Maybe analytically it is a walts, but tell me why people call it a blues.--Ratzer (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Although it's rarer than 4/4, I would hardly call 6/8 or 3/4 unusual. They are both fairly common (of course, not as much as 4/4), so much so that it's another "basic" time sig. Some bands (such as Coheed and Cambria use 6/8 as much or more than they use 4/4, but rarely if ever use anything else (such as the time sigs in this article). ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

3/4 time is quite popular in country music. Here are a few I know:

• "Blue Moon of Kentucky" by Bill Monroe
• "Alibis" by Tracy Lawrence
• "Meanwhile" by George Strait
• "In Between Dances" by Pam Tillis
• "Last Cheater's Waltz" by T.G. Sheppard
• "Here's a Quarter (Call Someone Who Cares)" by Travis Tritt
• "I Loved Her First" by Heartland
• "Song for the Life" by Alan Jackson

That's just off the top of my head; I'm sure there are millions more. I do know that there are a bunch of country songs with "waltz" somewhere in the title. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the input, that's all I wanted. Anyone else who can contribute? Let's not waste more time about debating whether 3/4 is unusual or not, but it is rare in pop/rock and perhaps a bit less so in country music. I can't make a guess if 1 percent or 0.1 percent of all pop/rock songs are 3/4, 3/8 or 6/8. I have not found an encyclopedic resource on that topic. I would like to collect some more material on that and see if it's worthwile to start a separate article on 3/4 and similar time signatures. @TenPoundHammer: I'm sure there are not millions more, I will be pleased to find a few hundred.--Ratzer (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I do tend to use hyperbole, don't I? Seriously, though, I do know of many more country songs that are in 3/4 or 6/8. ("A Broken Wing" by Martina McBride is in 12/8, which still isn't that unusual; it's just 6/8 doubled.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't speculate more about country music, I don't know much about it (the few pieces I do know are 4/4, like Coal Miner's Daughter). Talking about pop/rock, I hope to find some time, someday, to analyze the Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time and determine how many of the 500 are three beats to the bar.--Ratzer (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

For many persons triple grouping is pretty much synonymous with country music, although these persons may be thinking of an older, more traditional kind of country music.

Re: "I don't see how 'three beats to the bar' is any different from a waltz.":

A waltz is a particular kind of dance with particular steps. Music to accompany the waltz more or less follows these steps and is associated with an "oom-pah-pah" disposition of a triple grouping. Among other triple-grouping dances for which musical pieces are commonly named are the mazurka, the minuet, and the sarabande. TheScotch (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mompou's time signatures

Federico Mompou used some unusual ways of indicating time signatures in his piano music. In many cases he uses just a single number, e.g. "3", rather than, say, 3 over 4. In many cases he puts the time signature (whether 1 or 2 numbers) not on the staves but in the white space between them, or above or below the stave where there's only one stave. Sometimes he uses large-type numbers, sometimes just the usual size. Sometimes he uses no time signature at all. Often he'll also dispense with bar lines, but not always. Sometimes he has bar lines in the treble stave but none in the bass. Sometimes he uses configuration that's mathematically ambiguous. Here are some examples:

• Cancion y Danza No. 1 has the number "3" written not on the staves, but in the white space between them
• Cancion y Danza No. 5 has a similar thing, but instead of a "3", it's now a big "8" over a big "4". That's the "cancion". The "danza" starts out with a normal 6/4 written on the treble stave (at the start there's only a treble stave); but as we go along the time switches between 5/4, 6/4 and 3/4, but these are all written in large numbers between the staves.
• Cancion y Danza Nos. 6, 7 and 8 use exclusively large numbers written between the staves.
• Cancion y Danza No. 2 has no time signature at all; the "cancion" doesn't even have any bar lines; the "danza" has bar lines but still no time signature.
• The first of the Impresiones Intimas has no time signature at all. The remaining 8 pieces of the set all have standard time signatures, written in the standard way. For some reason, the first 4 pieces of the set are numbered I, II, III and IV, but the remaining 5 pieces are not numbered at all.
• Cancion y Danza No. 12 is in "3" time. Everything's ok till we come to measure 8. Until then, every measure contained 3 beats, but measure 8 has only 2. It has no indication that these 2 crotchets are to be played in the time of 3; but neither does the time signature change. This problem recurs 4 more times in this brief piece.
• In "Scenes d'enfants", the first piece Cris dans la rue has no time signature; it has bar lines in the treble clef but not in the bass - except for one solitary bass bar line after measure 4, and never again for the remaining 52 measures.
• The 2nd piece Jeux sur la plage (which is numbered I; Cris dans la rue isn't numbered), there are both a treble and a bass clef, but the time signature "3" is written above the treble clef. The treble clef has bar lines, the bass doesn't.

Not sure what, if anything, we could say about any of these issues. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

One thing that can be said is that the use of single-digit signatures is common practice in French notation, from the early 18th century onward. The other aspects of Mompou's notation may be idiosycratic. However, this is all a matter of notation, not a question of unusual metres as such.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jerome. I appreciate the difference, so thanks for pointing it out. Can you point me to other examples of single-digit time signatures? I've not come across it in the standard repertoire, apart from Mompou. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2008 (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.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "However, this is all a matter of notation, not a question of unusual metres as such.":

So is every time signature "all a matter of notation". TheScotch (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Turn it on Again

This song is mostly in 13/8. It would be a disservice not to mention it. There is no solid reference, except an interview on "The Way We Walk" DVD. I know we're supposedly gung ho about references, but I have an extensive musical education, and years of experience, and alot of educated people are infuriated by wikipedia's ref policy, though it's definately needed. There has to be a way to get a reference for this. I can't just upload the DVD interviews, that's not legal... How do we ref it? How rare are songs in 13/8? Name ONE other one. ReignMan (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

generic name for 3/4, 3/8, 6/8, etc.

Hi, I'm looking for a generic name of those time signatures that have three beats to the bar, the simple time signature being 3/4 (perhaps 3/2 also exists), that also subsumes the compound signatures such as 3/8, 6/8, 9/8, for a new article I would like to start. Should I call it 3-beat time signature or something else?--Ratzer (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The generic term you seem to be seeking is "triple meter". However, this does not include 6/8, which has two beats to the bar, not three. Meters such as 3/32, 3/16, 3/8, 3/4, 3/2, 3/1 are called "simple triple meter", and the first level (and all subsequent levels) of beat subdivision is into two parts. The word "compound", which you seem to be misusing, applies to measures in which the beat is first subdivided into three parts instead of two (subsequent, smaller levels being always into halves). Examples of triple-compound meters are 9/32, 9/16, 9/8, 9/4, etc. Duple-compound meters are 6/16. 6/8, 6/4, 12/16, 12/8, 12/4, etc. Compound meter can also be extended to "odd" meters, such as quintuple-compound (e.g., 15/8), septuple-compound (e.g., 21/16), and so on. I would say that, if you do not already know this, you need to consult the main Meter (music) article, and reconsider whether you really want to create a separate article on such a small subtopic.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Although textbooks teach, as you say, that 3/8 is simple triple, in practice this signature is almost always treated as one beat to the bar, with a triple subdivision. Compound single, you might say. But we're explaining conventional wisdom on WP. —Wahoofive (talk) 07:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is merely a matter of what you perceive as "a beat" (which often has to do with tempo, among other things). Three-eight still implies (and only implies, though) simple triple meter: a grouping of three (beats or not), the components of which in turn divide into two parts. TheScotch (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Defining unusual / sourcing irregularities

It seems that in my absence, metres in 10 and 11 were added without citation for whether they are unusual. While it's not particularly easy to argue that these time signatures are not unusual, it was a keystone of the sourcing deletion project that "unusual" is not defined anywhere. And so, time signatures were added with citations noting that they were unusual. It seems that this sourcing sentiment has fallen by the wayside. Shall we decide on a more concrete position for this issue? --Anonymous 67.187.38.109 (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally believe it's a ridiculous stretch to apply the sourcing criteria to words such as 'unusual'. This would come close to exclude the possibility of using any kind of language other than the most formalistic and precise language from Wikipedia. For example, you can apply a similar criterion to the current featured article on Wikipedia. This article starts with the sentence: 'The Hoysala Empire (Kannada: ಹೊಯ್ಸಳ ಸಾಮ್ರಾಜ್ಯ) (pronunciation: [hojsəɭə saːmraːdʒjə] (help·info) in Kannada) was a prominent South Indian Kannadiga empire that ruled most of the modern day state of Karnataka between the 10th and the 14th centuries.' Do you really believe it would be suitable, or reasonable in any way, to require a source to state that this empire is indeed 'prominent'. Would other encyclopedias do this? And what's the difference between that and requiring some kind of source stating that a time signature is 'unusual'?

I do not believe that there can be any serious debate about the meaning of the word 'unusual'. My dictionary defines it as 'not habitually or commonly occurring or done' and other dictionaries will unquestionably define it similarly. With regards to which time signatures are unusual, the Time signature article already mentions a number of time signatures (3/4, 4/4, 6/8 et al.) as 'most common', leading to the implication that other time sigs are unusual. Moreover, a number of time signatures is explicitly mentioned as being unusual afterwards, again without sourcing.

This kind of hair-splitting only is prone to result in a number of uncommon but still sporadically occurring time signatures (5/8, 9/8) as unusual (because they are more documented), whereas other time signatures that are so wild that they occur only in a handful of songs (and hence, are less documented), are maybe nowhere specifically documented as being unusual. Does that make them any less unusual?

Please, please, please, let us concentrate on making Wikipedia a good encyclopedia, instead of interpreting rules so strictly that the underlying point is lost entirely. Joost (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I think I'll go add something in 12/8. How long before someone catches that it's not exactly an unusual time signature? Also, the Time Signature article is not sourced. We have actually had this debate before, if you scroll up. I can source things calling everything in single digits "common" (refer to above -- I believe that one was the Idiot's Guide). This entire article bases its existence on the distinction that is "unusual", and offers no criteria for what constitutes "unusual" other than the opinions of editors. That was the sticking point before. Don't get me wrong: I don't care to make a big hoopla about the sourcing. I just want some idea of what we're doing now with the definition of "unusual". --Anon 67.187.38.109 (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, everyone knows that 12/8 is not an unusual time signature, and 10/8 is. Is there anyone actually making a claim to the contrary, or only people Wikilawyreing that we need a source to the contrary? The whole thing that annoys me so much about this entire thing, is that there has so far been not A SINGLE disagreement about the facts, but only disagreements about how the rules about sourcing need to be interpreted. As for your question, 'How long before someone catches that it's not exactly an unusual time signature?', 'a few hours at most' is probably a realistic answer. Joost (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am not actually seeing any sources confirming that 5/8, 7/8 et al. are unusual. Where are the sources that confirm this? And no, 'The song's unusual 7/4 time signature also made it one of Garcia's favorites out of the entire Weir catalog.' does not actually affirm 7/8 is generally unusual, but only states that it is unusual in its context. Joost (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In what context? You're going to have to clarify how "The song's unusual 7/4 time signature..." implies that 7/4 is not typically unusual or is only unusual in a context.

There are contexts where 7/4 or 7/8 are not unusual, e.g. some types of Balkan folk and Klezmer music.

Also, "everyone knows" is a far cry from any kind of reliable. If that were in an article, it would be killed in seconds (unverifiable + weasel words = immediate death to edit). And if 12/8 is not unusual (and I don't say it is), you would find lots of pieces around in 12/8 -- more than 5/4 and 7/8, at least, as those are "unusual" -- but I don't see anything of the sort. The problem is that you're headed right down the same path of the original article that found its way to deletion: we think so, we say so, and we don't need sources to prove it. --Anonymous 67.187.38.109 (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

First a question that I expect an honest answer to: are you contesting that 10/4 is unusual? Have you seen anyone contesting this? If the answer to both questions is 'no', is sourcing really needed? There is a rather wry thing about this whole discussion, and that's the total absence of any dispute of the facts. It seems to me that just about everyone agrees on the facts - nobody at least has explicitly denied that time signatures such as '10/4' are unusual, but the only point of disagreement is the requirement of a source explicitly stating that 10/4 is unusual.

And yes, there is a reason why I wrote this on the talk page, and not on the main page. As far as I know, giving a personal opinion (that may or may not include claims such as "everyone knows X") is allowed on a talk page, but not on an article itself. The claim of course might be somewhat hyperbolic - not everyone, in the strict sense, knows the thing I named - but I am quite convinced that everybody with a bit of knowledge about music (and we can safely assume that to include everyone posting in this topic) agrees that e.g. a time signature in 10 (be it 10/8 or 10/4) is unusual. It's especially bizarre that '10/8' is somehow accepted as unusual and '10/4' is not, even though it's mostly an arbitrary decision to say whether a piece is written in 10/8 or 10/4, with only the 10 being clearly apparent from the music.

Moreover, an article that is already cited as source in this article ([2]) names a number of time signatures as 'ubiquitous', others as 'common', and does not list others at all. This list can be taken to imply that meters in 7, 8 and 10 are unusual: why is this not acceptable? If you Google on '10/4 time signature' virtually every hit contains an implication of this being strange or odd. Lists of common time signatures never include 10/4. What's the debate really? I would still like to see my point addressed, that firstly, for many of the time signatures listed as 'unusual', no source is given citing it as unusual (other than the source I mentioned, which implicitly mentions 10/4 as unusual), and secondly, most of the sources that are named are far from reliable sources, coming from review sites et al., rather than from scientific articles. The core of the matter here, of course, is that in the area of pop/rock/metal/etc. music you are not going to find a large amount of scientific, peer-reviewed articles, anyway, and this already would be a fair reason to consider loosening the sourcing criteria somewhat.

Finally, I recommend you to look at recently featured articles on Wikipedia, and check these articles for unsourced statements of this type. They seem to be nothing less than ubiquitous: it seems far stricter sourcing requirements are applied to this article than elsewhere on Wikipedia. As for the deletion of the original article: that was an action by one person, and going by the replies in the subsequent RfC about 50% of people who replied thought that the deletion was unnecessary. Joost (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "It's especially bizarre that '10/8' is somehow accepted as unusual and '10/4' is not, even though it's mostly an arbitrary decision to say whether a piece is written in 10/8 or 10/4, with only the 10 being clearly apparent from the music.":

Neither the "numerator" (so to speak) nor the "denominator" is audible. (Groupings of ten may be audible, but groupings of ten don't require that composers, arrangers, and transcribers notate with a 10/x time signature--whether or not it may be advisable to in certain circumstances.) If 10/8 is written less commonly than 10/4, then 10/8 is a more unusual time signature, and that's all there is to that. TheScotch (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Britten's "Old Joe has gone Fishing"

I am desperately trying to remember the time signatures for "Old Joe has gone Fishing" from the end of the 1st act of Peter Grimes by Benjamin Britten. I think it is 7/4 and 5/4 (singing against each other). It has always been my dad's favourite example of an odd time signature. The irregular rhythm is meant to suggest the rocking of the boat on a less than calm sea I think. Anyone know what it is and would it fit in here if I can source it? Rachel Pearce (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That would go in the unusual time signature combinations section along with a note as to the time signatures used. --Anon 67.187.38.109 (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK I have found out that both parts sing in 7/4, but one in a 2+3+2 rhythm and the other in 2+2+3. Is the sheet music itself OK as a reference, or do we need an article mentioning the time signature? I can't find an article that is available without subscription. Rachel Pearce (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The score would be a perfectly acceptable source, in my opinion. At least half of the present sources are scores. Do please include all of the usual publication information, though (place, publisher, year).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Finding lost information

This article has lost a lot of entries since the last time I read it. Does anyone have a history link handy to the version with more information? I came here hoping to read about works in unusual time signatures, but I'd rather not have to go through all the diffs from the past year or so. Maybe the more content-rich version should be linked somewhere prominent, as an archive of the glory days? Factitious (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Look here. Nick Graves (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't really what was asked for. Try here for the list as it was before [editors] started messing with it. It's been said before, but I'll say it again: the fact that people want the info in the archived pages instead of the current one suggests something's gone seriously, seriously awry. Surely there's a compromise position here somewhere? I can understand deleting unsourced material if there's an actual substantive disagreement about the time signature, but otherwise it really just seems to detract from the usefulness of the whole project. Conchisness (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that history link had exactly what I was looking for. I agree it's weird that the current article is so much less useful, but it looks like there's already been a lot of argument on that. Might I suggest a compromise? At the top of the article, we could have a notice saying "If you're here because you're looking for a list of musical works in unusual time signatures, you may have better luck with this older version." Is there a Wikipedia policy on how best to mention past versions within articles? Factitious (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Putting a link to an unverified historical version of the article within the current article would still violate Wikipedia policies concerning unsourced material and original research. It's like saying "Hey, we're not supposed to give you a bunch of unverified information, but here it is anyway." The old list is already available in the history to anyone who pokes around and doesn't care that it isn't sourced. However, featuring links to this list within the article undermines the whole policy-based point of removing the unsourced material, creates a content fork, and violates the spirit, if not the letter of external links policy. If editors are concerned that the information in the old list should be available for the public, there are plenty of wikis and other sites that do not have policies against original research, and can host the old, unsourced list. By the way, the talk page link I provided above does point in the direction of the old list (including the sub-lists that had been broken off from the main list). One need only click on the previous revision link after following the diffs links I listed. Nick Graves (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia has a policy against OR on sites that are linked to. Moreover, the answers.com link on the current version of the article is precisely the old Wikipedia article. I don't think it should be there, but it's still there, and I am not going to remove it because I mostly disagree with this policy that you seem to be enforcing single-handedly on this article. How about a reply to my many earlier comments to this unresolved issue, and about doing something with the RfC we had some time ago? Joost (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this section in the external links style guideline, which lists "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" among links normally to be avoided. You're right about the Answers.com link: it should be removed, as should the AOL personal website, which appears dead anyway. I have been only very lightly involved with this article the past couple of months, so I'm not sure why you think I am single-handedly enforcing original research policy. The bulk of credit for deleting unreferenced entries recently goes to TenPoundHammer, Jerome Kohl and The Haunted Angel. The standard for this article that has been maintained by these editors and myself has been to insist on reliable secondary sources or original scores to substantiate each entry. If you or any other editor wishes to revisit the issue and possibly establish another standard, please feel free to open up another RfC and solicit opinions from the wider community. Nick Graves (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as we're getting all legalistic "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" seems to me to involve two distinct criteria: (a) the the site mislead readers, and (b) that it do so by the use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. If the link was clear about the nature of material contained in it, it wouldn't mislead readers, and so wouldn't fall foul of the guideline.

I still don't really understand why a compromise position isn't available here. The overriding aim is surely to create a useful resource for readers. Part of the problem in doing that is that people seem to have different ideas of what is useful, but surely if that's the overall aim, we shouldn't be relying on legalistic interpretations of policy to justify doing things that many readers obviously think massively diminish the usefulness of the resource. I take that to be the intent and spirit of Ignore all rules. Conchisness (talk) 12:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not terribly concerned about the external links section, which is why I have not deleted the mirror of the old list. A prominent link to a historical version hosted on Wikipedia, however, would be hypocritical, obtrusive, and unencyclopedic. Why not just say in the lead section "Hey, this well-researched but relatively short version stinks. The real version is here."? Cannot the external link to the old version, hosted elsewhere be considered a compromise? That is, after all, what you and others have been primarily concerned with--seeing that the old list is available to those who want to use it? Well, there it is, and anyone who finds the present, thoroughly sourced Wikipedia list unsatisfactory can easily find the other.

WP:IAR says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I don't disagree with this policy. I do disagree that ignoring original research and sourcing policies would improve this article. Without observing those rules, the list becomes bloated, unmanageable, unreliable and unencyclopedic.

Here's a question for those who are dissatisfied with the way things stand right now: What are you going to do about this list? How will you try to attain satisfaction? We've been writing a lot of words on this talk page. Meanwhile, TenPoundHammer, Jerome Kohl and The Haunted Angel continue to silently maintain the fully sourced list. I'm the only member of the pro-sourcing/anti-original research "side" who has so far participated in this latest discussion, and I'm starting to wonder why I continue. Are we just going to keep talking while the list remains more or less the same as it is now? Or are you going to take it to the next step? A request for comment seems the next logical step for those who are dissatisfied. I won't be opening it. There is no incentive for me to do so, as long as the current standards for this article are being maintained by its regular contributors. Nick Graves (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am in partial agreement here. Maybe we shouldn't just include every song which has been identified as being in a certain time signature by a certain listener. But I am a bit more worried about the exclusion of songs in 10/4: the Pandora link (that was more-or-less agreed to be a reliable source here) lists a number of songs, starting with unusual time signatures, and proceeding with increasingly unusual time signatures, first going through 5/4, 7/8 et al. to finally end with 10/4. The accompanying podcast mentions at a point that the time sigs treated until that point (3/4, 4/4, 6/8) were 'normal' and that the ones that follow would be in the realm of strange time signatures. Nobody in their right mind would claim 10/4 is a usual time signature, it just happens to be so that in the current sources it is only implied as being unusual, rather than explicitly stated to be so. At the same time, for most of the other time signatures mentioned on this article, no sources explicitly naming those time signatures as unusual are mentioned either. Why require an explicit mention of 10/4 being sourced as 'unusual', but not (the far more common) 5/4? Personally, I believe this article would not lose the slightest bit of credibility if we added the 10/4 songs sourced by Pandora to it. Do you really believe these songs can only be included if we first identify another source explicitly citing 10/4 as unusual? And in that case, where are the sources citing e.g. 9/4 and 10/8 as unusual: I strongly doubt that the sourced scores and songbooks include an accompanying text stating 'This time signature is unusual.' or something to that effect. Joost (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides, currently there are several sources listed which do not even credit an author. I fail to understand how these sources can in any way be considered more reliable than the own judgement of Wikipedia editors. Ergo: we need consistent criteria. The reason why the current version of the article meets so much opposition, is that there are right now no consistent criteria. This compromises the reliability of the article: in the old version we had a long and comprehensive list of questionable reliability, and right now we have a short list which still is of questionable reliability. Joost (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I listened to the podcast you mentioned. Here's the section I think you're referring to: KEVIN SEAL: "So all the meters we’ve heard so far—4/4, 3/4 and 6/8, and its brother 12/8—when we are analyzing songs for Pandora, we consider all of those to be normal time signatures… Let’s now move into the world of the exceptions. Let’s talk about odd time signatures, odd meters." ADAM BLUM: "They’re really pretty rare… This is a clear departure from 4/4 and 3/4 we’re now talking about a very small universe, an interesting universe of music…" (from Meters & Time Signatures, Pandora Podcast Series, Episode 20, starting at 4:25)

I think it's a stretch to use this as a source for all of the other time signatures (that is, not 4/4, 3/4, 6/8 and 12/8) being unusual. They only mention 5/4, 7/4 and 7/8 explicitly in their podcast when they go into their section on odd time signatures. Also, they fail to list 2/4 as one of the "normal" time signatures--clearly we cannot assume that 2/4 is unusual just because it was not one of the time signatures heard in the first part of the podcast. They never say something like "All time signatures except X, Y and Z are unusual," though they come tantalizingly close.

I think it would be wonderful if someone would find a reliable source that explicitly said "These are the usual time signatures. Everything else is unusual." Then that would open the floodgates for all of these other time signatures that some have been so eager to add. I've looked for such a source, but haven't found it yet.

5/4 is identified as an odd time signature in one of the sources, though it is not as prominent as it should be: "All this from a straight-ahead jazz quartet playing in 5/4, an odd time signature." Sony Music listing for Take Five. Perhaps the source identifying the time signature as odd should be cited at the start of the section. You're right about 10/4--it's not a common time signature. But the criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We have to able to point to reliable sources to back up what is written here. 10/4 being an unusual time signature is not one of those common knowledge facts that can be put in without a reference.

No, a lot of the references given are not as good as they should be. Perhaps some are not as reliable as they ought to be, or are incomplete. If so, this is support for improving the references, but not for returning to the previous method of adding time signatures and songs without sources, which would just greatly multiply whatever problems exist in the current list. If you or anyone else finds a source to be inadequate, you can certainly challenge it (by deletion and/or discussion). That would help move the article forward toward the consistency and quality that you're after. Nick Graves (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Something being 'usual' or not' will of course always be a matter of interpretation, and I doubt many peopel would believe there are clear-cut criteria as to what's unusual and not. This is where I want to invoke the 'Ignore All Rules' policy: even by adding the songs listed as being in 10/4, we have a credible list with the due references. We have a list, that's agreed to be relatively reliable, in an article about uncommon time signatures, that lists a number of songs as being in 10/4, but we can't quote it because it is implicit, rather than explicit, from that list that 10/4 is considered unusual. The important thing here (and the core of the discussion) is the presence of reliable sources that confirm the time signatures posted here are 'correct'. I don't even believe that the actual list will become any less credible if a signature happens to be 'not that unusual' in the end. There are various sources online claiming that 5/4 and 7/8 are actually rather common (yet none for 10/4), but I don't think anyone would believe 5/4 and 7/8 don't belong in this list because they are considered, by some people and/or in some contexts, to be unusual. Here, in the case of 10/4, we have those sources! At the same time, as I mentioned, there is no source mentioning the unusuality of 10/8 either (yes, there are sources mentioning that for 5/4, but that wasn't what I talked about in my previous post)! Or is there? We need consistency on this area, and *if* you really believe that it is needed to come with sources that confirm that time signatures are unusual, add the relevant sources to the captions! I kind of hope that we can resolve this by common sense and, if not, I guess starting a RfC will be a good thing. Joost (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

On that last part, I agree. I will see about making the unusual time sig refs prominent at the start of each section. Nick Graves (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Air and Kilometers

I guess only 'classic songs' are allowed on the main page, but Kaki King's 'Sad American' is a song done in full 5/4 meter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empress Ericka (talk • contribs) 08:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think there are any restrictions on the type of music that can be included on this list? As long as you can provide a verifiable source, please feel free to add it. Just bear in mind that unreferenced additions will be swiftly deleted, as stated plainly at the head of the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think with 'classic songs' he did not refer to classical music, but rather to songs that are considered 'classics'. While that is not the case, of course songs listed are also expected to meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia WP:NOTE. So songs by very obscure artists that nobody knows should not be listed, even in the (unlikely) case that there is a reliable source mentioning it to be in an unusual time signature. Joost (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite so. The expression 'classic songs' does not suggest classical music to me, either, but I should have mentioned the notability criteria. In this particular case, there is a bluelink to a Wikipedia article containing reasonably good documentation, so I think that Empress Ericka can reasonably assume that Kaki King satisfies those criteria (though the sheer number of Wikipedia articles on popular musicians is so staggering I doubt that more than a small fraction can be familiar to most readers or editors of Wikipedia). Whether or not acceptable documentation can be found for the 5/4 meter in her song is another matter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nine inch nails march of the pigs

7/8 verse with 4/4 chorus, http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1548067 seem reasonable? --86.164.24.19 (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This song is now added, but with a different source. The reliability of Everything2 as a source is quite debatable. Joost (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Combining x/4 and x/8

In one of the recent edits by Nick Graves, he combined 10/4 and 10/8 to a single entry. This makes a lot of sense, because it is often purely a matter of interpretation whether one considers the main beat as quarter notes or eighth notes. Perhaps the same should be done for 9/4 and 9/8, and 11/4 and 11/8 respectively? Joost (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is why we need printed scores in order to make a distinction between metre and time signature and not just listen to a recording. Instead of 9/8 you could write it as "3/4 with triplet eighths", or as a series of 3/8 bars. Allowing WP editors to decide which time signature sounds right or makes the most sense or involving anything which is "a matter of interpretation" is totally OR. Listing every possible time signature for a piece is just a waste of time. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't referring to the OR issue, which is more or less settled for the time being. The point is: a lot of the current references, e.g. the ones from Allmusic, etc., are not scores but just people (although knowledgeable ones) saying things like 'this song is in 7/8'. Other people (equally knowledgeable) might say about the same song that it is, for example, in 7/4. With rock, metal, and other popular music, there is also the problem that the music is rarely written down by the composer directly, and even a score from a score book may then be an interpretation by someone else than the composer. Maybe this list should be renamed into something like "List of musical works in irregular/unusual metre" instead. Joost (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking that it would be better to separate those sections. To avoid OR, the entries should correspond to the time signature identified in the source cited. If the sections are consolidated, we cannot tell which time signature was identified in the source. Nick Graves (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Combining things does not constitute OR, does it? If a source says "this is in 7/8" and we list it under "7/4 or 7/8", that is no OR, as "7/8" directly implies, logically, "7/4 or 7/8". Rather, it falls under 'organizing material from existing sources', which is considered fine as per WP:NOR.

Songs sourcing 'John McLaughlin And The Mahavishnu Orchestra'

In the old, long and mostly unsourced list, two Mahavishnu Orchestra songs were listed with 'John McLaughlin and the Mahavishnu Orchestra (out of print)' as source. The songs were removed in this edit. (In case the reason for deletion of this source is that someone questioned the reliability of the source: it seems to be that that book is the same as this one, a score book which is listed in reviews as a 'long awaited re-print'. It does, by all means, seem to be a proper source (although I do not have the book myself to verify if it indeed lists those tracks as being in those time signatures--I doubt there is a good reason to doubt the reliability of whoever originally posted it). The same goes for the reference of a Dream Theater song, which is sourced by an instructional drum video of Mike Portnoy, DT's drummer. So the songs concerned are the following:

• (18/8) (1973) "Birds of Fire" by Mahavishnu Orchestra - guitar plays 5+5+5+3 while drums play 6+6+6. Violin from time to time plays 3+3+2+3+3+2+2. From the book: John McLaughlin and the Mahavishnu Orchestra (out of print).
• (19/16) (1973) "Celestial Terrestrial Commuters" by Mahavishnu Orchestra. From the book: John McLaughlin and the Mahavishnu Orchestra (out of print).
• (19/16) (1999) "Home" by Dream Theater - The outro section with sitar is counted in 19/16 (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 123) as described on Mike Portnoy's Liquid Drum Theater instructional DVD

Of course, this still (according to the current policy) leaves us with a need for sources that back up those time signatures as being 'unusual'. ...maybe I should just get that RfC going *g*. Joost (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for all those deleted songs and recent, unsourced additions

Perhaps some of the frustration over "lost" information and the inability to add songs for time signatures that haven't yet been confirmed as unusual by reliable sources can be addressed by starting a list (not in the main namespace) for songs and time signatures that are likely additions, but presently lack sources. It could be something like the "List of rejected people" here, and could serve as a valuable resource for future expansion of the list. What do you think? Nick Graves (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea - that way it'd be easier to see what needs sourcing to be added to the main article; I'm for it. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Great idea! 129.67.98.0 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Do we need sources identifying time signatures as unusual?

The issue at hand is the following: in the current shape, the article consists of a list of number of songs, with sources considered reliable, in time signatures that have been identified as unusual. A number of time signatures, such as 3/4, 6/8, 4/4, have been clearly identified as usual or common time signatures, whereas several others, such as 5/4, 7/8 and 11/8 have been identified as unusual. Right now, we have a number of songs, in 18/8 and 19/16 respectively, with reliable sources that confirm that those songs are indeed in those time signatures. However, these songs can, as per the current policy, not be included in the list because we lack a source that confirms that 18/8 and 19/16 are indeed unusual time signatures. There is no actual disagreement here as to whether 18/8 and 19/16 are indeed time signatures, and as far as I know there is no disagreement either about the reliability of the sources that mention those songs as being in 18/8 or 19/16: as far as I can see, the disagreement comes down to whether we need a source identifying 18/8 and 19/16 as unusual time signatures or not. The question is: do we really need to include a source explicitly mentioning those time signatures as being unusual (of course, provided that there are reliable sources confirming the songs to be in those time signatures), especially in the absence of any disagreement about those time signatures indeed being unusual. 12:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that we should look at several issues first: a) What is the point of this article exactly?, b) Is 'unusual' a description of a type that is factually verifiable at all?, c) Would the credibility of this article be compromised at all if we added songs in 18/8 and 19/16 without a reference confirming these as unusual?

a) I believe the point of this article is to provide examples of songs that are in unusual time signatures. The point of this article is not a discussion about when and when not a time signature can be considered unusual. Such discussion should belong in an article such as Time signature and not in a list like this.

b) The description 'unusual' is by no means a factual description and, in fact, also culturally dependent one. But even from a Western perspective, there might be reasonable disagreements of what constitutes 'usual' and what 'unusual'.

c) I do not think the credibility of this article would be compromised in any way by such inclusion. As long as the songs listed are properly sourced, there is no reason to really doubt it in any way -- all the statements in it that are of clearly factual nature, are verifiably correct. Of all the time signatures listed, the one of which the 'unusuality' is most likely to be challenged is most likely 7/8, and definitely not 18/8 or 19/16.

The bottom line is, in my eyes, that precisely because 18/8 and 19/16 are so rare, we are unlikely to find any sources making any general type of statement about such time signatures. Also, because 'unusual' is not a term with any scientific or musicological value, but just a general description, because there is no clear correct black/white division between 'usual' and 'unusual', I believe the likelyhood of finding a source providing a clear demarcation between 'usual' and 'unusual' time signatures is very low. (And if there were such a source, there would in fact be good reason to doubt its credibility because of the gross simplifications it provides!) This gives us the paradox, that the weirder and more unusual a time signature is, the less documented it will be, and hence, the less likely songs in that time signature can be included in this list.

Also, consider the fact that the unusuality of time signature by no means fits any of the criteria of sourcing requirements listed in WP:V and WP:CITE, not even by a far stretch. The unusuality of 18/8 and 19/16 is, in all reasonableness, very unlikely to be challenged, cannot therefore be considered as 'doubtful', and I do not see its inclusion as presenting any problems whatsoever. Joost (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, this article might be renamed into something like "List of musical works in time signatures other than 2/2, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4, 4/2, 6/8, 9/8 as compound triple meter, or 12/8" or something along those lines. Or we might keep the current name and in an introductory paragraph state that 'unusual' is in this case just a shorthand for 'other than 2/2, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4, 6/8, 9/8 as compound triple meter, or 12/8'. That way songs that are verified to be in bizarre time signatures such as 18/8 and 19/16 can be listed, the content of the article and inclusion criteria will become clearer, and stop being dependent on finding sources documenting vague terms such as 'unusual' and 'odd'. In either case, there would be no violation whatsoever of WP:V, WP:CITE or WP:NOR and the article will only gain in quality. (Not that I think there would be any violation of any of those policies here, otherwise, if we included songs in 18/8 and 19/16, but other people seem to disagree for reasons not entirely clear to me.)

Nevermind the above RFC

I think I found a source that allows us to consider 'everything but ...' as unusual. A 2003 issue of music tech magazine first lists the simple time signatures 2/2, 2/4, 2/8, 3/2, 3/4, 3/8, 4/2, 4/4, 4/8, and the compound (explicitly mentioned as triplet-based) time signatures 6/4, 6/8, 6/16, 9/4, 9/8, 9/16, 12/4, 12/8, 12/16, and subsequently claims "we've listed all the popular time signatures". I think this should be a sufficient source that allows us to consider everything else as "unusual". Joost (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! This news just made my day. Thanks so much for finding that source! Nick Graves (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that source will do nicely, but one fundamental problem remains: what we are mostly speaking of here are meters, but the article title says this is about "time signatures". As someone using the pseudonym Lygophile justifiably (if oafishly) asked on Talk:Meter (music), "why is there two articles on teh exact same subject, time signature and this one?" While people do commonly use these terms as if they were interchangeable, there are times when a distinction needs to be made. According to the above definition, Telemann's Gulliver Suite for two violins has two movements in "unusual" time signatures: "Lilliputian Chaconne" (in 3/32) and "Brobdingnagian Gigue" (in 12/1). Though these time signtures are undeniably unusual, they are nevertheless perfectly ordinary triple-simple and quadruple-compound meters—a well-known example of an Augenmusik jest. I have amended the article to avoid this (even though the cited source supports the amendment more in spirit than in letter), but the better solution would be to retitle the article "List of musical works in unusual meters", and make plain the difference between the two terms (not only here, but in the "Time signature" and "Meter (music)" articles, as well). Although it hasn't come up yet, this would also forestall the problem of different transcriptions of the same song/piece in, say, 7/4 versus 7/8. It would almost certainly entail recasting the sections slightly. For example, 5/8 and 5/4 would have to be conflated as "quintuple-simple meter", 15/8 and 15/4 as "quintuple-compound" (where they actually are such, naturally), and so on, with a section for "irregular" meters, such as bars of 15 units grouped in 3 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 2 + 2.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. All of the sources cited specifically identify time signatures. Even if someone in a source is epeaking of a song that they've only listened to, they've nevertheless chosen to assign the song a time signature. Sure, the only thing existing in the music itself is meter, but they express their evaluation of that meter in terms of time signature. A time signature is a graphic way of writing, representing or imagining meter using conventional notation. When an original score is cited, it is obvious that the work has a specific time signature. When there is no original score, but a transcription exists, the work has a time signature as assigned by that transcriber, even if the composer did not assign it a time signature. And when a piece has neither original score nor a transcription, it can nevertheless be mentally represented using conventional notation and assigned a time signature. Nick Graves (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not strictly speaking true, unless you are willing to accept "tricky time signature" in the source cited for the Grateful Dead's "Eleven". (I have placed a call for a better source in the article—one that actually states the written time signature.) I expect this probably is published somewhere in 11/8, but it could just as easily be notated in 11/4 or 11/16—or in alternating bars of ordinary, garden-variety time signatures, like 3/4+3/4+3/4+2/4, or something. If you are going to be a strict constructionist about this, then quite a few items will have to be deleted simply because they are notated in this way. A few others will need reclassifying, since they use goofy signatures like "3 + 2 + 3" all above a single "8", instead of 8/8 time (the Bartók examples of 8/8 both do this). Further, it is quite possible to notate a song in 4/4 time, and yet write rhythms that are in a regular pattern of seven beats. Irving Berlin's "Puttin' on the Ritz" is an example of this, though to be sure not in the introduction, or even in every single bar of the main part of the song; and I know of at least one really stupid edition that notates 16th-century galliards (an emphatically triple-time dance) in duple meter, because the original notation used the symbol ₵ (that is, tempus imperfectum diminutum). As to "mentally representing" a piece that has neither score nor a transcription, wouldn't this amount to Original Research? Or do you have something in mind for how such a thing might be sourced?

I think one reason that nearly all the sources cited specifically identify time signatures is because that is what editors have been led by the title of this article to look for. It isn't at all difficult to find sources that identify metres without referring to time signatures. For example, I might cite Allan Kozinn's New York Times review on 12 March 2000 of John Corigliano’s Mr. Tambourine Man: Seven Poems of Bob Dylan as evidence that his setting of "Blowin' in the Wind" is "mostly in the lopsided meter of five beats to the bar", but there is no mention of whether it is notated in 5/8, 5/4, or some other metre. Similarly, Bruce Posner, in the notes to the CD Innova 587, says of the second movement of Andrew Violette's Piano Sonata no. 7 simply that “Five beats to the bar is the predominant meter in the Dance.” Don Robertson describes the creation (together with drummer Mike Dahlgren) of his song "Contemplation", from the 1969 Limelight album Dawn: "Mike and I decided to use a rhythm of five beats divided into to [sic] parts of 2 + 3 repeated over and over at a rather rapid clip. This creates a kind of two-beat feeling, the second beat being a little longer than the first.” Older editions of the Grove Dictionary cite the aria 'Se la sorte mi condanna' in the opera L'Ariadne by Andrea Adolfati, written in 1750, as an early example of "five beats to the bar" or "quintuple time" (1879 edition, vol. 1, p. 38; 1890 edition, vol. 3, p. 61, respectively), but the exact metre is not specified. I would say all of these are perfectly good sources, but none give a clue about what numeral to put in the denominator.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Jerome Kohl wrote: "As to 'mentally representing' a piece that has neither score nor a transcription, wouldn't this amount to Original Research?" I respond: It would be if editors were doing it so they could add works to the list. However, when the author of a reliable source does it, it is not original research for us to report the time signature they assign to the work. In such cases, the author is doing precisely the same thing a transcriber does when they listen to a work and decide what time signature would work best as they begin writing their transcription. The author of a reliable source in such cases has something like a partial transcription in their mind that they are expressing, which is no less citable than a complete, written transcription. Nick Graves (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me, though it still leaves open the question of how to deal with conflicting interpretations (and, of course, the unspecified "quintuple time", "five beats in a bar", etc.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Further, it is quite possible to notate a song in 4/4 time, and yet write rhythms that are in a regular pattern of seven beats.":

Not only is it "quite possible", it (this sort of thing, I mean) happens much more commonly than is generally supposed, and in traditional common-practice music. On the other hand, a fair number of passages of twentieth-century music written with "unusual" time signatures are audibly grouped in a "usual" manner. TheScotch (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's return to the first remark made in this section:

Re: "...and the compound (explicitly mentioned as triplet-based) time signatures 6/4, 6/8,...":

I would have no strong objection to defining explicitly "unusual time signature" is this way were it not for the construction "triplet-based", which now appears in the article as well. A measure of 4/4 filled in with twelve eighth notes is a measure filled in with eighth-note triplets (effectively twelfth notes, as Henry Cowell and others have pointed out), but a measure of 12/8 filled in with twelve eighth notes is a measure filled in with plain old ordinary eighth notes. "Compound" time signatures are not at all "triplet-based"!

The weak objection is that it's still arbitrary, and the easiest way to get around that, I should think, is simply to say that the article concerns itself with time signatures less usual than such and such time signatures. (I'm not impressed with the reference here, by the way.) TheScotch (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Bernstein's Candide Quartet Finale

This is in 9/4, but is it 'not ordinary triple-compound'? If no, it should be left out as it does not fits the criteria anymore. (I don't know this piece myself, that's why I ask) Joost (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the goalposts have been moved. I have deleted the example, as it is no longer an unusual meter according to the recently edstablished definition.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Consolidated sections

As long as we're consolidating sections (eg. 5/8, 5/4, 5/2, etc.), can we also note in each entry which specific time signature(s) is or are identified in the source(s) cited? This could be within the ref tag and/or parenthetically at the end of the entry. I believe the old list did something like this. Nick Graves (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, to start with, you are talking about something I did. However, I didn't consolidate sections, but merely added three further quintuple time signatures to a section that already had two (5/4 and 5/8). Other hands have split apart "consolidated" sections further down the list, and if you think this one, too, should be separated out, then by all means go ahead and do so. Personally, I would prefer that sections not be consolidated, but rather grouped by metrical type (quintuple, septuple, etc.), and then—exactly as you suggest in this case—the specific time signature(s), if any—be identified (as I did in the case of the seven Cancionero del Palacio items I added).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry: I misperceived what had taken place. I had no intention of "accusing" anyone. I agree with separating sections according to metrical type. I just want to be sure that new additions have specific time signatures identified in their entries. I see that you have noted these in your footnotes. I think it would be useful to include these too at the end of the entry in the body of the article. I will work on that. Nick Graves (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, if we go ahead and separate by metrical type, this would provide an excellent way to incorporate odd-metered works with no specified time signature. Perhaps retitling the article as "List of musical works in unusual meters or time signatures" would be in order. Nick Graves (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. If we are going to include unusual grouping of 8/8 (which is certainly not an unusual time signature), we absolutely must include meter in the title of the page. Of course, adding meter tempts me to repeat my suggestion of omitting time signature entirely. --Anonymous 67.187.38.109 (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the definition currently at the beginning of the article, 8/8 is unusual (that is, "usual" meters must have 2, 3, or 4 in the numerator for simple meters, 6, 9, or 12 for compound meters). This is also an unusual meter in my personal experience, and is almost always used when the groupings of eighth notes is some permutation of 3 3 2—rarely if ever as a substitute for a very slow 4/4. That said, I agree with you 100% that this article is really about meters more than signatures per se, and I'm happy to see that Nick Graves is coming around to this view, as well.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: "This is also an unusual meter in my personal experience, and is almost always used when the groupings of eighth notes is some permutation of 3 3 2—rarely if ever as a substitute for a very slow 4/4.":

Ahem. There are very few groupings more common than 3+3+2, and the vast majority of cases in written music occur under the penumbra of a 4/4 time signature. (That Bartok et al seem to have been greatly deceived about this is no excuse for us to be.)

Re: "That said, I agree with you 100% that this article is really about meters more than signatures per se....":

See the "What meter is not section" of this discussion page. TheScotch (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

/Unsourced page - moving and mentioning it

I've changed the template at the top from {{Dynamic list of songs}} to {{Dynamic list}}, and have tweaked the notice box at the top of this talk page to not have the link to the /Unsourced page twice (and it was not the real name).

I suggest moving it from Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures/Unsourced to List of musical works in unusual time signatures/Unsourced, and to link to it in the article.

I definitely think this would be a good idea, as a lot of the songs on there are correct, meaning it would be useful for the average reader to see. Also, it would be helpful for people to know easily that they should check that a song isn't on the /Unsourced list first, before adding it, and to know that there is a list.

Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with mentioning it in the article. The list is a resource for editors, and not of a quality fit for presentation in the encyclopedia proper. Sure, many are correct, but this cannot be assured in the absence of reliable sources. There are plenty of outlets on the internet for original research. Wikipedia is not one of them. Nick Graves (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Unusual Time

Good afternoon! I appear to have happened upon a scene of tension and strain reminiscent of the scene of a car-crash. Contributors rudely require that new contributions observe creeping instructions, evolved by who-knows-whom, which are, it turns out, not enunciated on this page as claimed. They remove examples as "unsourced" when adequate references are made to well-known and readily-available recordings, but do not add these deletions to the "unsourced" collection as advertised. Ominous references are found everywhere to past battles of which no trace remains. What is up? Is there a point or a motive for this page and its editors OTHER than collecting examples of "unusual" time-signatures, perchance? Is there, among this jovial crew, someone who would like to stand up as supreme wiki arbiter of the acceptability of sources (and general assiduous keeper of policies)? Is it perhaps being alleged that a reference to the time-signature of the piece must have appeared in print and that it is incumbent upon every contributor to prove to all others that this is so? Would this be because of a basic lack of interest in the subject, inability to count or...? Because we will have to have at least a degree-level paper on every heavy metal song on the page, in that case, or else the printed word is no better a source than any random contribution, so it seems to me. Clarification would be appreciated, thanks. Redheylin (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I could take credit/blame for initiating what you've compared to a "car-crash." I'm not going to explain everything that happened here, which is documented in detail on this page and its archives. Here's a quick attempt at clarification:

Regular editors who have stuck around to maintain this page have generally agreed that: (1) Determining what is an "unusual" time signature is something best left to reliable sources, not editors; (2) Determining time signatures is not just a simple matter of listening and counting, and is also something best left to reliable sources; (3) All entries require written sources beyond the song itself--those without such sources ought to be removed from the article; and (4) all of this is necessary to keep the list in compliance with a number of Wikipedia policies or guidelines, including WP:OR, WP:V and WP:NOT. Furthermore, since the current instructions/standards have the support of editors here, they are supported by Wikipedia:Consensus, another important policy. Of course, consensus can change, but not without further discussion. If you're dissatisfied with the way things stand, please make some suggestions here and solicit responses from your fellow editors.

It is not incumbent on those who remove songs from the main list to add them to the unreferenced list. The unreferenced list is a "sandbox" of sorts for those who care to use it for the expansion and improvement of the main list. Its use is entirely optional. Nick Graves (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(Applause). I can only add that, with regard to "not enunciated on this page as claimed", it is true that this policy is not presented in the open-text article, but it is stated plainly at the head of the article file in "hidden text". I think there may be a problem here because, when someone opens only a particular section to edit, only the text of that section will be displayed and, hence, the policy statement will not be seen.

Concerning "references . . . to well-known and readily-available recordings" is not what is meant on Wikipedia by "references" or "reliable sources". It is the equivalent of citing a recording of Shakespeare's Hamlet as proof that it is written in the English language. This is what Nick Graves means by "best left to reliable sources": a (reliable) source that states plainly: "Shakespeare's Hamlet is an English-language play".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I admire your rigour and see the need for it in WIKI, but I'd add that, even now, it will take time and questions to comprehend the exact height of the bar you have set, let alone the reasoning behind this.

To take the present example, I cited Vaughan-William's "Fantasia on Christmas Carols". Now, you say "All entries require written sources beyond the song itself". For example, the Bartok pieces DO appear to cite the printed piece itself as eg "Bartok 1940" but this is obviously not a proper reference, which would include the publisher, but is simply the date of composition. It follows that, had I added such a date for VW in the text, it would have formed a citation, but then perhaps you would have required that this be a footnote (which is liable to cause you formatting problems anyhow) and deleted the reference without notice nevertheless.

I see I have partly brought this on myself by making a change anonymously, but the overall effect is hardly to welcome new contributors. I accept you not only do not see any value in making an effort to add the right citation yourselves but do not feel it necessary either to add a waiver or request for citation on the page nor to add the example to the unsourced list which, after some research, emerges as the place where such pieces are apparently supposed to end up, but you must accept that all this may discourage useful additions and knowledgeable new contributions, to the ultimate detriment of the list itself, particularly when. as you say, your requirements are not advertised and your history so fraught.

If we can take care of this clear-cut example then perhaps later it will be worthwhile to go into the matter of WHAT third-party sources are considered allowable, whether we would indeed refuse the evidence of an audio version if there were no text "Hamlet" and so forth - for of course this is a real issue when dealing with world music, which, even if it has been transcribed or there is a comment upon the matter in sleeve-notes, had no "time signature" as such in the first place since this comes into being only when transcription takes place. This raises the question of the reliability of transcriptions, particularly in the case I mentioned - the realtime transcription of unaccompanied song. A case in point that has already appeared as confirmed is The Beatles' "Within You Without You", the central section of which has been analysed in conflicting ways, purely on the basis of audio listening, while the original piece was tala-based, recorded with a metre but no key-signature. Furthermore, popular transcriptions of the Beatles' music, produced by hack arrangers, again purely from the audio source, are notoriously inaccurate, though these are not at present cited.

I see the need to avoid personal research in general, but not when it occasions a scrabble for a source of ANY source, no matter how casual and questionable - I'd cite the use of pop music journalism to define "unusual". This IS a list, and inclusion requires inevitably some discernment, judgment and experience on the part of the editors. I do not know whether a true world-wide picture of the use of these metres can emerge if western ideas of notation, etc, are imposed upon orally based musical systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redheylin (talk • contribs) 18:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Coming across this long text for the second time, I belatedly notice something that needs addressing, namely the statement: "the Bartok pieces DO appear to cite the printed piece itself as eg "Bartok 1940" but this is obviously not a proper reference, which would include the publisher, but is simply the date of composition." The citation is not to a date of composition, but to the year of publication, and the full citation with full title, place, and publisher is found in the Bibliography: Bartók, Béla. 1940. Mikrokosmos: Progressive Piano Pieces = Pièces de piano progressives = Zongoramuzsika a kezdet legkezdetétöl, 6 vols. New York and London: Boosey & Hawkes. The form "(Bartók 1940)" used within the list is called an "author-date" citation, and is a shortened form pointing to the main entry in the Bibliography.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "....you must accept that all this may discourage useful additions and knowledgeable new contributions, to the ultimate detriment of the list itself....":

That would depend on what the point of the list is in the first place. I can't see any point to it myself.

Re: "I do not know whether a true world-wide picture of the use of these metres can emerge if western ideas of notation, etc, are imposed upon orally based musical systems.":

The article is currently called "List of musical works in [sic] unusual time signatures". A time signature is a thing written on a piece of paper, one numeral atop another. Since not all musical cultures use time signatures or even musical notation, it would be perverse indeed to expect "a true world-wide picture" to "emerge" from a discussion of time signatures. It would be equally perverse to fault the discussion for failing to provoke such an emergence.

The term metre, or meter, simply means measure. Measuring is the thing measures do--hence the name. Measures measure and mark off sections of music of equal duration, and time signatures say what that duration is. Because in many circumstances (certainly not all), it is considered desirable to make the sections of equal duration correspond with a prevailing musical grouping, time signatures also tend to imply certain groupings. Two-four, for example, implies a grouping of two, the units of which in turn divide into two parts, but it only implies that: It means simply that each measure lasts as long as two quarter notes. Measures and time signatures are not audible, and meter is not instrinsic to the music. TheScotch (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle. Heaven knows I inveighed mightily in favour of changing the name of this list (somewhere in the acres and acres of acrid prose above). Nick Graves was adament that the name should be kept, and no-one else weighed in to tip the balance, so I gave up. However, I can now see one argument for his position that was not mentioned at the time: objectivity. You, TheScotch, quite accurately observe that 'A time signature is a thing written on a piece of paper', and 'Measures and time signatures are not audible, and meter is not instrinsic to the music'. You see, the advantage to insisting on time signature as the relevant factor is that it is written on a piece of paper, and thus is easily verifiable. If you take the position that the signature in which a piece is written may well be overridden by rhythmic patterns 'intrinsic to the music' (for example, a seven-beat ostinato throughout a piece notated in 4/4 time), you are up against the OR problem that has caused so much bile to be spilt over referencing, because the patterns must be interpreted by someone, either by ear, or from a score. If a reference can be found that states plainly 'this piece is in a prevailing compound-quintuple rhythm' (and a few of the present references do just that), well and good, the doubting reader can go and look it up; a score on the other hand is rendered completely useless, since a notated 11/4 time, for example, proves nothing at all about the 'intrinsic' qualities of the rhythms in the piece, which could have perfectly ordinary four-beat patterns, notated eccentrically. The same thing applies to a writer who says a piece is 'in' some signature or other: he can imagine notating it that way, even though he might admit the 'intrinsic rhythms' are unrelated to the chosen signature. I still think the title of this article ought to be changed, as you recommend, but the result will be a reduction of the list to about five items, since all references to metre signatures will be made null and void.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A small quibble: It's actually a matter of indifference to me whether the article changes its name or decides really to be about paper time signatures (possibly because I'm fuzzy about the point of the article anyway), but I would like it to do one or the other and not be a mish-mash. TheScotch (talk) 10:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)