Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Pieces with different time signatures for different parts

Where do these go? At least it is clear where to place 4/4 vs 24/16; what about something like 11/8 vs 13/8? (Not that I have seen that particular example, but doubtless something like that has been written). It seems to me that there are three categories: (A) all time signatures involved are common (e.g. 2/4 vs 3/4), and the inclusion of such works here is debatable; (B) only one is uncommon (e.g. 4/4 vs 24/16), and it is clear that these should go under their uncommon time signature; (C) more than one is uncommon (e.g. 11/8 vs 13/8), and it's not clear where to place them. Double sharp (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This sounds like you are describing the section Unusual time signature combinations.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be dealing with additive meters that are written using combinations of time signatures (e.g. A Headache and a Sixty-Fourth = 65/64 written as 4/4 + 1/64), not this kind of polymetric notation. Double sharp (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that this has been used as a catch-all category for pieces that employ a mixture of unusual time signatures (with the possibility that some bars may be in "usual" meters), though I have not surveyed the current content to verify my memory. When you use the word "polymetric", I presume you are referring to simultaneous use of different meters, and I wonder what example you have in mind where 11/8 and 13/8 are superimposed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I just picked two time signatures from this list, and didn't choose 5/8 or 7/8 because those are covered elsewhere (and are not really unusual at this time, I would say). Double sharp (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, so this was just an hypothetical combination, then. I think my question really was: are you talking about simultaneous combinations of different "unusual" meters. (Just to be absolutely clear: I agree with you that quintuple and septuple meters have not actually been "unusual" for at least 4,000 years now, even if certain recently evolved music genres have chosen to limit themselves strictly to 4/4 time. This list, however, has a specific definition of "unusual", presented at the outset. Unless we can come up with a better one, the perfectly common 5/8 and 7/8 remain "unusual" by this definition, along with 4/1 and 4/32 time.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes.

Personally I'd classify something like 11/8 as unusual in meter (defined as anything with more than 8 beats in a bar, with each beat divided into more than 8 parts), while something like 2/16 or Telemann's ridiculous 3²/₂/4 would be unusual in notation (beause 2/16 = 2/4 and 3²/₂/4 = 4/4). This can prove annoying, though, when the time signature doesn't actually fit the real meter (e.g. 8/8 – not the additive meter-type – is often written as 4/4.) Double sharp (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Anything interesting historically about undecuple, tredecuple, septendecuple, novemdecuple, etc. meters?

Also, what's the name for meters like 1/4? "Single meter"? Double sharp (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm running out of answers here! I can only suppose that meter signatures with a 1 in the numerator might be called something like "single" or "unitary" meter, but I have never come across a generic name for this. There was a bit of a dispute on this talk page about four or five years ago, concerning whether the subject really should be "meter" rather than "time signatures". I argued for the former, and lost. I have to admit, though, that meter signature is usually easier to verify, and this is the reason I added the example of Britten's Passacaglia from Peter Grimes to the lede. That said, one interesting thing about "historical" use of undecuple and higher-numbered meters/signatures is whether they should be construed as having eleven or more beats, or whether they contain a much smaller number of beats, but of different lengths. We have this problem with many traditional musics using so-called aksak rhythms, which in Western notation must be represented in meters like 9/8 (2+2+2+3) for the Turkish meter called aksak, but are counted by their practitioners as having four beats to the bar, only with the last one half-again longer than each of the first three. Meters with eleven or more units in the numerator (when transcribed into modern notation) appear to have been fairly common in antiquity, though of course there was no such thing as a time signature in those days. It is really impossible to be sure whether these meters were construed in practice as a sequence of even sub-pulses measuring syllables of varying lengths, or as a sequence of uneven pulses. For example, the Hymn to the Sun by Mesomedes of Crete, cited in this list as "15/8, grouped 2+2+2+2+2+3+2", would most likely have been regarded as a septuple meter, with a long sixth beat.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Kind of like the distinction between "true 5/4" (an even five, e.g. Alkan Op.42) and "false 5/4" (3/4 + 2/4 or something like that), is it not? (I might have just made those terms up, though I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see them used elsewhere.) Alkan also describes his experiment in septuple time (Op.32 No.8) as sextuple time with a long 6th beat in one of his letters. Double sharp (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Aha, found it: [1]. Double sharp (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is related, and Fétis also discussed this same distinction at around the same time. However, an additional important factor is tempo. When the speed accelerates past a certain point, our perception "shifts down" to the next-larger note value. Depending on whether the slower original grouping was in twos or threes, this next-larger value will be either twice or three times the starting value (4/4 turns into 2/2, and 3/4 becomes one-in-a-bar). In an "irregular" meter, there are both duple and triple groupings, so when this threshold is reached, we must use beats of different lengths. In the case of "true" quintuple meter (in Alkan's sense), this should not occur until a speed is reached where five of the original pulses can be perceived as subdivisions of a single beat. I suppose it is only a theoretical possibility that such fives might be mixed with threes or twos as well, for example in 16/8 time divided not into groupings of 2s and 3s but, at a very fast tempo, into 5 + 5 + 3 + 3, resulting in four beats of different lengths. Without the medium of notation, I'm not sure how this could usefully be distinguished from 4/4 time with the first two beats "dragged", however (a bit like the problem of the Viennese waltz with a "rushed second beat", which is of course written in ordinary 3/4 time for convenience, but has got a distinctive aksak rhythm in performance that does not actually resolve into anything very close to that meter).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the other three Alkan Op.32 No.2 impromptus show this clearly: #5 is 5/4 (slow; quarter note perceived as beat); #6 is 5/8 (medium; I tend to perceive it as 3/8+2/8, except in bars 8 and 24 = 4/8+1/8); #7 is 5/16 (very fast; almost single quintuple meter where an entire bar is a beat and you start perceiving the hypermeter as the actual meter). Double sharp (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

One bar does not a time signature make

I propose we remove all entries along the lines or "Bar x is in 23/7 time". That's a quirk of notation, not an actual change of meter. It's not meaningful to say there's a change in time signature unless that meter has a chance to establish itself. It's like calling a passing chromatic note "a change of key". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andybak (talk • contribs) 10:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, "in" could be replaced with "with". Toccata quarta (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a long argument four or five years ago about this very subject, when I proposed (and was unable to gain consensus for) changing the article title to "List of musical works in unusual meters". It was decided at that time that the "quirk of notation" was easier to establish than actual meter, and it was at that time that I added the example of the Passacaglia from Britten's Peter Grimes to the lede. It is easy to give the undecuple meter the "chance to establish itself" in that piece, since it is relentlessly in an eleven-beat cycle, and yet the notation is in 4/4 throughout. It is a short step from accepting 4/4 (and not 11/4) as the time signature of that Passacaglia to insisting that any single occurrence of a bar with some odd time signature also belongs in the list. The emphasis here is clearly on the manner of notation, not the sound of the music (see also the Telemann example from the so-called "Gulliver Suite", which are all in ordinary meters but with comical time signatures). If anyone now cares again to nominate this list for re-naming, I would be in support, though it would mean a wholesale overhaul and a cross-check of all the cited sources, many of which currently refer only to notated signatures.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should create a parallel page called "List of musical works in unusual meters"? If that becomes more useful and better edited then the case for deleting or overhauling this page will become easier. Andybak (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You may propose that for discussion but at this point, I think I must change my mind and say I would oppose it. As I said above, establishing actual meter is much more difficult (and subjective) than establishing written time signatures, and this whole business seems to be a useless trivia game anyway. There are in fact tens of thousands of pieces written in what this list is pleased to define as "unusual" signatures (quintuple and septuple meters are not very unusual, after all, as can be seen from their separate articles), and most of the truly bizarre ones turn out to be nothing more than irregular alternations of perfectly regular meters, notated oddly to impress the inexperienced, or outright jokes (like the Telemann examples mentioned above, or the Bo Nilsson examples found in the list).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Missing songs?

I think the song "Time" by Pink FLoyd should be somewhere on the list, it is in 7/4 signature

And "Innuendo" by Queen is 5/4 in the spanish guitar solo.

And Living in the past by Jethro Tull is also 5/4

85.11.30.42 (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

None of these would belong on this list, since there are now separate articles on Quintuple meter and Septuple meter. If you have got reliable sources verifying either these time signatures or their quintuple/septuple meter, by all means add them to the trivia lists at the ends of those articles. (Jethro Tull's "Living in the Past" is already in the Quintuple meter list, so you needn't waste your time on that one).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"The Eleven" by the Grateful Dead is a pretty obvious one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.144.11 (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean, like here? Well, the time signature turns out to be tricky, as you will discover from the source once offered for this song.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

References

(edit conflict) User:Groyolo has objected that one particular footnote reference does not lead clearly and easily to the actual source, and has attempted two solutions to correct this: (1) conversion from short-reference to full-footnote format, and (2) adding an external link to the short reference in the footnote. I have reverted both of these edits, not because I am unsympathetic about the problem, but because it addresses only one footnote in a list that mixes at least three different reference formats, contrary to the guidelines at WP:CITESTYLE. I think the first thing that needs to be dealt with is to establish a single citation style throughout this list. This is a daunting prospect, because of the very large number of footnotes involved, and this is the reason I have not taken this task upon myself up to this point, though wherever possible I have been leading the references toward the very one that Groyolo has got an issue with: short-citation footnotes using author-date format. I mentioned in my most recent edit summary that there is another way of solving the problem Groyolo sees here, but this involves and even greater amount of effort. This is to use templates to link the author-date citations to their corresponding entries in the bibliography. A good example of this is the article Electronic music. However, before implementing this (which would involve converting every single manually entered bibliography entry to templates) it should be decided that short-entry footnotes should be the format used throughout this list. Other formats presently in place include full-entry footnotes and external links embedded in footnotes. In addition, at least two of the footnotes are also "content notes", including parenthetical references. Insisting on embedded external links as a consistent format for all the references is a non-starter for two reasons: (1) there are no such links for the majority of the references, and (2) the WP:CITESTYLE guideline noted above describes in-text external links as unacceptable forms of reference, so that embedding them in footnotes may be seen as a related way of doing the same thing. This leaves several other options but, within the framework of what is presently in place, just two: full-entry footnotes, and shortened-entry footnotes. I find the former problematic in articles with a very large number of notes, because of the chaotic presentation, making it difficult or even impossible to assess the references as a body. (The references in the article Noise in music was revised along these lines not too long ago; please see the edit history and Talk page there.) For this reason, and because of the availability of the linking templates, I strongly incline to the short-entry style. However, I can also see that it might require less work to convert everything to the more chaotic long-entry footnote style, and dispense with the alphabetical list of sources.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

References and bibliography

I think that short references like "Stevenson 2014" for the theme music to "The Terminator" which are actually references to Web articles should be, at the least, linked to that Web article, and not left bare looking like a reference to some untraceable book, or something. (At the moment the reader has to go to the article's unusual "Bibliography" section to find a link to "Stevenson 2014".)

Jerome Kohl doesn't seem to think this is a good idea, and reverted my changing that one reference to the same words with a link with the reason "Why just this one? There are dozens of others like it in this list..."

Aren't little incremental evolutionary improvements what makes Wikipedia work? I think one more link that saves readers from knowing they have to search the page for a full reference is better than zero more links. Shouldn't the references be like the ones in other articles, even if there's a "Bibliography: References II!" section below them?

What's the better way of doing this, if adding links one at a time is unacceptable? Why should that be the case, anyway? I'm mystified. --Groyolo (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

See my long answer below, which was prepared simultaneously with your question (hence the edit conflict). However, your question "Shouldn't the references be like the ones in other articles?" suggests that you have not been editing on Wikipedia for very long. All of the references here, despite being wildly at odds amongst themselves, are like ones in other articles, and there are literally hundreds of formats found in other articles that, thankfully, are not also found here. Wikipedia does not have a consistent citation style, and all attempts to establish one have proved fruitless. You should see WP:CITEVAR on this subject.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right that you've been doing this longer than I have. By a WEEK! :-)

(You've got way more edits and the vast majority of my edits are minor, though.)

I therefore cede to you the magnificence of your Wikipedian schwartz, and since I doubt we actually disagree about anything of substance, will boil this down as much as I can.

I think small improvements to the current horrible mess - "references and then a highly overlapping bibliography" is so perverse that the Wikipedia style manuals don't even think to tell you not to do it - should be reverted only if they make the overall problem even worse. This is exactly how many projects in all walks of life go horribly astray - lots of people making small improvements to their personal situation that combine to make the entire system more and more hairy and incomprehensible. But I contend that bubbling data up from the Bibliography into the standard references (standard not in reference format, but in that that's where Wikipedia readers expect the references to be) will, if anything, help the project of fixing the reference format. There'll be less need for riffle-shuffling References and Bibliography together if more References entries already contain all the relevant info, in one order or another.

(And, in the meantime, fewer readers will see something like "Stevenson 2014" and think, "I guess that's a book or something", and leave unedified. I think that is a much worse problem than differing cite formats.)

If lots of little edits bubble the bibliography data up into the references then, eventually, you'll be able to just double-check that this job is done, and then delete Bibliography entirely and start drinking to forget it ever existed. The References links would now be where people expect them to be and would point to the right data, and could be format-harmonised relatively easily at a later date.

One person paid to fix the page could get it done in fewer person-hours, but numerous people chucking in three minutes each will, in Wikipedia tradition, produce a workable result.--Groyolo (talk) 06:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

One problem with the "bubble" theory is well-illustrated by this very case. For two or three years now I have been quietly re-formatting newly added external links to the short-cite, author-date format, and now you have come along to do just the opposite: replacing a short-cite format with an embedded external link. Clearly we are at cross-purposes here, and this is not going to lead in any direction at all, let alone one that any two editors can agree on. Do you have a specific objection to linking short-form references to the full refs in an alphabetical list? I am strongly against deleting the alphabetical bibliography, on grounds I have already explained.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Title is Incorrect

[Note: edited after reading some talk pages] Oxford Music Online's article "Time signature" very clearly defines a time signature as "a sign or signs placed at the beginning of a composition, after the clef and any key signature, or in the course of a composition. It indicates the METRE of the piece" (for those who don't know, Oxford Music Online is the go-to authoritative encyclopedic resource for music scholars in the English-speaking world). It is pretty clear from this quote that a time signature is a feature of notation, not a property of musical structure. A piece is not in a time signature, it has a time signature. Further, time signatures only exist in notated music. Some etymologically correct options for a title might be "List of musical works in unusual meters" or "List of musical works with unusual time signatures," although this latter title still by definition excludes music that does not exist in notation (but may nonetheless be widely known for its odd meter). The current title unfortunately is a misuse of terms. Shugurim (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

So what's the scope of "Unusual time signature combinations"?

While that is a section in the article, it never seems to have been defined what an unusual time signature combination is. Double sharp (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point. There was a great deal of difficulty finding an acceptable definition of "unusual time signatures". I cannot imagine it will be any easier to define what "unusual" means in relationship to combinations of (usual or unusual?) time signatures.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Many of the entries in this section would probably still qualify to be on the list, because at least one of the time signatures in their combinations is unusual by this list's definition (e.g. 4/4 + 1/64 in "A Headache and a Sixty-Fourth"). But I think we should just change this section to "Combinations of various unusual time signatures" or something like that, and then it would be used for cases where more than one unusual time signature is used (e.g. the currently listed "Firth of Fifth" – 13/16 and 15/16). Double sharp (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that this is what was originally intended, but an ambiguous title was unintentionally chosen. Perhaps this was to avoid too long a header? Would "Unusual signatures in combination" be better, or maybe "Combined unusual signatures"? The definition of "unusual" chosen for the list as a whole would then still apply.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think either of these would be fine. Double sharp (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Since our discussion seems not to have ignited a firestorm of protest, I shall change the header to "Combined unusual signatures", on grounds that it is the shortest version.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Should the following be removed since it has just 2/4, 3/4 and 4/4, all of which are common? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 12:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Limelight" by Rush. Intro is 4/4 and 3/4 alternating (can be transcribed as 7/4 therefore), verse is 3/4, 3/4, 4/4, 2/4, 4/4, 2/4, 3/4, 3/4, 4/4 (3 times). The chorus is 7 times 3/4, 3 times 4/4.

Yes, I think it should be removed for that reason. Double sharp (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

...and  Done Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Mussorgsky

Pictures at an Exhibition is listed in the Bibliography section, but not in the body; why? (The Promenade is in 11, notated as alternating measures of 5/4 and 6/4.) —Tamfang (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The example was probably moved when the article Quintuple meter was created, and this source should now be removed. Thanks for pointing this out. There are five different versions of the Promenade, each with different combinations of meters, all involving 5/4 in various irregular combinations. There are no bars in any of these five versions that use a signature of 11/4 (see the lede section of this list, with respect to notation vs effective meter).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Pictures at an Exhibition article says under the first and fifth Promenades: "Meter: originally 11/4. Published editions alternate 5/4 and 6/4" (first Promenade) or "...alternate 5/4, 6/4, and 7/4" (fifth Promenade). If Mussorgsky's autograph gives 11/4, it would be fair game for the list! Double sharp (talk) 20:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it would, though of course it would have to be specified that this applies only to Mussorgsky's (unpublished?) manuscript version (not to mention explaining how 5 + 7 or 6 + 7 might equal 11). This immediately makes me wonder if Benjamin Britten's manuscript of the Passacaglia from Peter Grimes shows it was originally drafted in 11/4, and only on reflection was re-notated in 4/4 so as not to frighten the musicians in the pit.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I gorgot to say that bringing back that formerly orphaned source would be of no use in this case, since it was a published score without any mention of this 11/4 business at all.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I'm not sure how 5 + 7 or 6 + 7 could possibly equal 11; perhaps they are only partially in 11/4. Double sharp (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

59/48

I am still somewhat suspicious about this. Whatever the cited source says, the "rhythm notated as five beats in the time of seven" (presumably a 5:7 polyrhythm) does not make it clear what the time signature of that section is. Given that a meter like 59/48 is only useful with reference to something else with a power-of-two denominator (and how slow it would have to be, to make triplet 32nds useful!), I suspect this might actually be a misinterpretation of alternating 5/4 and 9/8, with the time signatures written together side by side to indicate their alternation. The combination of the prime numerator 59 and the fast metrical modulation that the denominator 48 seems to demand seems to preclude any accurate performance of such a piece by live musicians. (This comes partly from experience: I have long since given up hope that any of my beloved 7:8:9:10 polyrhythms will ever be performed in time, and now when I write them, I only expect that vertical simultaneities be observed, and permit free use of life-saving rubato. If we can classify Viennese waltz rhythms as triple time, we can handle this.) But we would have to consult the original score to see what actually happens: until then, we have to follow what that single reference says. (I am apparently not the first person to have suspected this.) Double sharp (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

"Somewhat suspicious" is a rather cautious position, in my opinion. If the source is being cited correctly (and I have got that CD somewhere in my collection, so I can check on Bob Gilmore's exact words), it actually says this piece is written in alterating 5/4 and 9/8. As such it not only does not confirm, but actually contradicts the claim of such a ridiculous signature as 59/48. (I have a sinking feeling I know who the inattentive clod was who inserted this example in the list, but I would have to check the edit history to be sure.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Given your comment, I'll remove it. Double sharp (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. As soon as I find that dratted CD, I will see if there is warrant to restore it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the separation of quintuple and septuple time

This does not really give a good place to put things like 7/128 (e.g. Crumb, Black Angels), which is of interest not only for that not-very-unusual 7 in the numerator, but also for the highly unusual 128 in the denominator. In the septuple meter article it would feel like a barely-relevant distraction, while here it would seem to make good sense and be in good company with the examples of 2/1 and 3/1. Double sharp (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Even better examples would be the 5/6 and 7/12 in Kyle Gann's L'Itoi Variations. Double sharp (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

16/4, 16/8, 16/16

Any works in any of these time signatures???

Similarly, not that I know of, or that anyone who has contributed to this list knows of. The first would be the most interesting, as it would offer the opportunity to use a longa. Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

But so would a time signature of 4/1. Georgia guy (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Also true, but I haven't seen that either outside contrived illustrative examples. I wonder why, given that 2/1 and 3/1 are both attested. Double sharp (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. On the other hand, the largest meter here (24/1) already needs three maximas tied together to span it, but Telemann never takes the opportunity. (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Or 2 dotted maximas tied. Georgia guy (talk) 12:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps that would be a better option, since it seems to be in compound octuple meter (and would seem to be crying out for a new note value beyond the maxima). Double sharp (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Now, how many pieces do you know in octuple meter?? IMO the most common time signature for such a meter is almost definitely 4/4 played at a slow tempo (less than about 75 quarter notes per minute.) Georgia guy (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't think of any off the top of my head. Perhaps part of it is that 8 is large and composite, so it tends to break up (unlike the numbers up to 7, which can stay as intact wholes, or the numbers up to 4, which very often stay as intact wholes). Another part of it is that in your example of slow 4/4 felt as eight 8th notes, it would not be notated as such (8/8), and so it would become like all the 2/4 time signatures Mozart writes when we would write 4/8, for example. (Because this is prone to misreading: I of course don't mean that he didn't know what he was doing! But conventions have changed since his time.) As a result it is really not clear if you should think of such pieces as octuple meter, or actual quadruple meter with widely spaced beats.

I might jokingly suggest that since the breve looks like a whole note with a square notehead, and the longa bears the same relation to the half, the obvious choice for an improved maxima glyph and a "bismaxima" (sexdecuple whole note?!) glyph would be a square quarter-note and a square eighth-note! (＾▽＾) But there obviously isn't a market for such long notes nowadays. (^_^) Double sharp (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

When beats are more widely spaced, it makes it easier to feel other beats within them. Georgia guy (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ganondorf's theme (23/4)

The YouTube link is broken. TheGrassGuy (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

9/4

[One day when heaven was filled with His praises] Composer: Charles H. Marsh (1909) Published in 53 hymnals

Klarm7680 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

To quote the article's lede, usual time signatures include "compound time signatures with top numerals of 6, 9, or 12 and bottom numerals 4, 8, or 16."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Partially in 9½/8

I'd like a second opinion before I add this to the article: Béla Fleck and the Flecktones, "Scratch and Sniff", beginning at 0:40 (and repeating later in the song) … isn't this in 9½/8 time? You could count it as 19/8, but it seems much more natural to me to count it as 9½/8. (If you want to listen, you can go to youtube at link </jPT0eqpsN84?t=40>.) glv (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

If you have got a reliable source confirming this time signature, then there should be no need for a second opinion. "Seeming", "could be counted", and "listen at YouTube" would be Original Research.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. Makes sense, thanks! glv (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

9/2 12/2

Any known works in 9/2 or 12/2?

Never seen any. I am not hopeful: already 9/4 and 12/4 are rare enough that despite the list's proclaiming them common, I cannot bring any examples to mind (though doubtless there are some that I've forgotten about or don't know). I can't even think of a work in 6/2. Double sharp (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Sibelius's 2nd Symphony, 3rd movement, F sharp major section. TheGrassGuy (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

That's in 12/4, according to this clarinet part. Double sharp (talk) 02:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I found a work in 12/2 and 6/2 on IMSLP, check the article. Charizardmewtwo (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on...

...putting works in time signatures whose bottom number is not 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, or 128 in a separate article?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

it might make sense to do something like that. Searching within the wiki for "irrational meter" turns up a section in Time signature along with mentions in Tuplet and Polyrhythm, perhaps relevant. I know less than diddly about the prevalence of written signatures such as 9/12. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I find it amusing that time signatures with numerator 14 and 16 are not included, and numerator 15 excluded quintuple meter. Charizardmewtwo (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

By "not included" do you mean that there simply are no examples (which may be because no one yet has found reliably sourced instances), or that in some way these meters are disqualified (which, as far as I can see, they are not)? There is a separate article for quintuple meter, which discusses compound-quintuple meter; all other varieties of 15-numeratored signatures are included here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I suppose not only compound-quintuple (3+3+3+3+3) but also quintuple-triple (5+5+5) metre should probably go to the quintuple-metre article. As for time signatures with a 14 or a 16, I think it's just a case of "no one's found any yet". Double sharp (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

How can "quintuple triple" meters go in the Quintuple meter article?? It's for time signatures with 5 beats. 5/4 and 5/8 are obvious, but how about 15/16?? 15/16, if put as 3+3+3+3+3, would be in this category. It would be an alternate way of writing 5/8 time when sixteenth note triplets are used consistently. But if it's in the 5+5+5 category, then it's just an alternate way of writing 3/4 time (which clearly isn't quintuple meter) where sixteenth note quintuplets are used consistently. Georgia guy (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

As things currently stand, the phrase "quintuple triple" is mentioned in the quintuple meter only as a disambiguator, because Gardner Read uses the expressions "quintuple triple", "quintuple quadruple", and so on to describe meters in which the beat is divided (first) into five parts instead of the usual two or three. Technically, as Georgia guy says, the article specifies there must be five beats to a bar for a meter to qualify as quintuple. It is easy in hindsight to say that Read should have thought more carefully before inventing such a term (or, if it was not actually his invention, then adopting it from wherever he had heard it), but the deed is done and we are now only able to explain why the word "quintuple" appears in non-quintuple meters. I have just come from explaining on my talk page why "inversion" can mean two completely differnt things, and heaven help us all if we have to explain the conflicts between musical uses of terms and the way the same words are used in other areas.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that terminology in music theory is not used with anything resembling consistency in any way, and even when it is widely agreed that something "should" be done (like not beaming 3/4 so that it looks like 6/8), composers do it a lot anyway. (I think this is not the first time I have informed Georgia guy of this.) Yes, in hindsight Read should probably have called 5+5+5 something like "quinary triple metre" and 3+3+3+3+3 "ternary quintuple metre" to avoid making "quintuple" mean two different things. But, he didn't, so we need to explain why "quintuple" does mean two different things. Double sharp (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

11/8

I'd like to add Promenade from Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition. It is sometimes seen as 5/4+6/4 alternating, but originally it is 11/8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictures_at_an_Exhibition 46.139.53.82 (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC) also "rosetta stoned" by tool is written in 11/8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.56.42 (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

None of the Promenades are written in 11/4 or 11/8. The Wikipedia article previously implied that the manuscript might have given 11/4, which was altered on publication to alternating 5/4 and 6/4, but actually checking a facsimile of the manuscript (the important bit can be seen here) shows that it was actually alternating 5/4 and 6/4 from the beginning. Double sharp (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

9/12

2-5 from Les indes galantes is in 9/12 time. 69.120.200.92 (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Assuming "2-5" to mean "entrée 2, scene 5" ("Fête du soleil"), I do not see this in the score, at least not of the 1735 version. Could you cite edition and page number(s), please?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Confusing headings

The format of the time signatures in the headings, straightforward enough in themselves, doesn't work in the table of contents, where the whole thing is in one line without a break. Can a case be made for representing them in the format 1½/4, 13/4, etc to make the TOC easier to navigate?

Can I also suggest that time signatures with whole numbers above and below be listed first, and the ones with fractions above follow them as being more complex and advanced? Koro Neil (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The formatting in the TOC is unfortunate, to say the least. The problem must have to do with the way the time-signature templates in the headings interact with the TOC formatting software. As far as I know, it would be necessary to sacrifice the header formatting in order to make the TOC look better. Maybe someone else knows more about these things than I do. As for the signatures with fractions in the "numerators", doesn't it make better sense to list the time signatures in numerical order (as is done now), rather than try to determine an order of complexity? For example, is ⁸
₈ more or less complex than ⁷
₈ or ¹
₁₂, never mind fractional numerators like, say, ^3+2⁄2
₄, which is of course a joke?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Multiple unusual signatures in one bar

Mahler's Um Mitternacht contains a bar marked "6/2 (3/1)"; presumably this should be listed under both 6/2 and 3/1. I am not sure what to make of one of Liszt's Petrarch Sonnets (in the piano version printed in Années de pélèrinage Vol. II), with the mathematically impossible equivalence "6/4 = 2/3" listed as the time signature, and the notes always adding up to the perfectly orthodox 6/4 instead of the unusual 2/3. I presume this would still qualify to be included (and yes, I do have the sources), but a bit of commentary would have to go along with its entry. Double sharp (talk) 06:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of musical works in unusual time signatures. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819212213/http://sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Office-of-Strategic-Influence-O-S-I-Biography/1BF6334EAAA6DB6048256CF400208FE8 to http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Office-of-Strategic-Influence-O-S-I-Biography/1BF6334EAAA6DB6048256CF400208FE8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Couperin's Pieces de Clavecin

Some of Couperin's Pieces de Clavecin use meters and rhythms in an unusual way.

• For example, L'anguille and La Pantomime have a 4/2 time signature, but is actually in 2/4. Is this just a misprint, or perhaps is it possibly something else? A similar situation occurs in the first edition of L'ausonienne, with 8/4 for 4/8. And 8/3 for Carnival from Mxnxstrxdxsx! Fortunately, most are corrected in the Brahms edition, except for the first two.
• In L'Atalante, the time signature is 4/8, but there sound to be two beats per measure. But 4/8 and 2/4 are technically the same thing, so that's forgivable.
• Some of the pieces use white (minim) noteheads with beams. Three, to be exact. At least three. Two of them have six of these new notes per measure and appear to be in some kind of triple meter, but the time signature is 3/2. The third has four to the measure and a time signature of 1/2. I mean, what is this, John Stump? No seriously, I saw a measure of "3/6" with one of these notes, dotted, in Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz.
• La Gaillard-Boiteux is in 2/6 time. This appears to be just some weird combination of 2/4 and 6/8. What's up with that? It kind of reminds me of the Gigue from Bach's Partita No. 6, BWV 830.

Looking through the scores in IMSLP, I sometimes feel like they are Alkan rather than Couperin. Some of these definitely are worthy enough to be on this list. Are any of these odd meters found in the pieces by the other French baroque keyboardists? E.g. Rameau, Daquin, etc. What do you think? 04:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShangKing (talk • contribs)

The "Combined unusual time signatures" section

Is this section really necessary? Because many musical works, mostly 20th century, contain many alternating meters. If that section were to be completed, for example, pretty much all of Igor Stravinsky's works should be there, since they often change time signatures. Amoymonarch (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem doesn't stop there, either. I have noticed several items there that combine a single unusual time signature with perfectly ordinary ones. I have moved all the ones I have found into the appropriate category, but I may have overlooked some. I haven't checked the edit history, but I know that extensive reorganization was recently undertaken, and it is possible that some pieces previously listed in two or more sections (because they happened to have two or more different time signatures) were brought together in an effort to take up less space. I know that a similar consolidation was carried out on the time signatures with fractional upper numerals.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Upper number greater than 60?

Would it be acceptable if someone added a section for this? As far as odd time signatures go, some sections resolve to an upper number higher than 60, particularly in more technical and/or experimental styles of metal, mathcore, and math rock. Off the top of my head, the interlude riff in Immolation - "Unpardonable Sin" (2:14-2:48) resolves to 61/16 as a whole (4/4, 4/4, 15/16, 7/8) and the third riff in Immolation - "Here in After" (0:48-1:14, 3:50-4:17) resolves to 65/8 (17/8, 17/8, 17/8, 14/8). There are likely a reasonable number of additional examples that others could add (particularly by bands such as Gorguts and Suffocation) as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.173.186 (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If by "resolve" you mean combining a succession of different time signatures into a hypothetical, longer one, that would be contrary to the basic tenet of this article, which does not refer to meter, but to your actual time signature. If we were to accept such analyses (which of course would require reliable sources, just like everything else on Wikipedia), then a hypermeteric combination of eight consecutive ⁴
₄ bars would yield an "unusual" time signature of ³²
₄. May I ask also if you mean that such hypermeters would have to be consistent for many repetitions, or would a single occurrence suffice? If the latter, then we could find hundreds, perhaps thousands of instances in almost any piece at all.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Conlon Nancarrow's ‘Study for Player Piano’, No. 41

I don't know where it should go in the article, but Conlon Nancarrow's 'Study for Player Piano', No. 41 has irrational signatures in the mathematical sense.

No. 41a is composed in ${\tfrac {1}{\sqrt {\pi }}}/{\sqrt {^{2}/_{3}}}$ time.

No. 41b is composed in ${\tfrac {1}{3{\sqrt {\pi }}}}/{\sqrt[{3}]{^{13}/_{16}}}$ time.

No. 41c is composed in ${\tfrac {{\tfrac {1}{3{\sqrt {\pi }}}}/{\sqrt[{3}]{^{13}/_{16}}}}{{\tfrac {1}{\sqrt {\pi }}}/{\sqrt {^{2}/_{3}}}}}$ time.

The front page of the study and sources for it are located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_for_Player_Piano_(Nancarrow) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.251.89 (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Strong One (Masked Man)

I’ve heard the time signature for this song isn’t even 29/16, because there aren’t 29 16th notes in each measure. There are actually 28.67676969, or 28 3394/5015 16th notes in each measure. So, the time signature would be 28 (3394/5015)/16, or 71907/40120. -05:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.246.175 (talk)

And your reliable source for this is ...?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

A good ear should always be a reliable source. It's not easy describing music with words, thus paradoxical to argue for verifying musical time signatures with text-based sources –– ♫ Ellie♫ 21:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

User:McLennonSon Wikipedia doesn't have any established criteria for distinguishing good vs bad ears, so external references are required. If it can be placed in words in Wikipedia, then it can be placed in words in an external reference. (I actually attempted to make the same argument about my ears with the late Jerome Kohl, regarding some tunes I knew were in 5/4, but I conceded to the requirement for references, as it's a standard requirement for Wikipedia: WP:NOR, WP:Verifiability).Finney1234 (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Finney1234, but should then sheet music be referenced, or other sources? This is a very broad issue that should be adressed I think. I once received a suspicious claim that some sheet music I uploaded was either fictional or stolen from the work I was referring to, so we need a separate department for that... –– ♫ Ellie♫ 12:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

–– ♫ Ellie I don't think Wikipedia documentation gets specific about that (though I haven't looked), but there's a (not always unambiguously defined) general concept of "reliable" reference. I'm pretty sure that sheet music has been accepted as a reference in the Quintuple meter article. Re: "suspicious claim": in the vast community of people involved in Wikipedia, "interesting" claims are sometimes made :-). Finney1234 (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocking semi-vandalism

I'm going to post a request to block 107.142.34.34 ; this is getting to be too much of a waste of time.Finney1234 (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Apparently the correct approach is to place warnings on the talk page; I've done that on User Talk : 107.142.34.34. Finney1234 (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Wayne L. Perkins's notability

The entries on Wayne L. Perkins's original compositions only seem to cite the composer's own self-published college paper. I've only done a bit of Googling, but as far as I can tell, this very page is the only mention of these works on the entire web. I'm a bit new to Wikipedia so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this fail to meet notability guidelines? I'm only asking since this source was over a decade ago by a well-established editor. Can someone clarify why Perkins's entries are notable?

HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Youtube

I've been away from this page for years, but I just noticed the last "undo" from Jerome with the edit summary "Youtube is not RS" and I went and checked. In this case, it is not so much about Youtube being or not being a reliable source, but that it's a Youtube link to the musical work being claimed to be in an unusual time signature itself, and the editor is counting the time signature themselves, making this OR. But I was thinking about Youtube being RS, and my opinion on this is that, really, it depends. A Youtube video is as reliable as the person making the video. There are some Youtubers that are professional, trained musicians and music teachers, and, again, IMHO, they are about as reliable as can be. I'm thinking Adam Neely and David Bruce (composer). I do think there are Youtube channels such as these two, and there are probably others, that have demonstrated a quality level in their material that would make them RS, so automatically dismissing Youtube would be a mistake. Thoughts? VdSV9•♫ 01:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree - if the creator of the video can be established to be a reliable source themselves, YouTube shouldn't be dismissed as a source. At most, there could be a requirement to also show a published source confirming the YouTube creator's reliability next to the video itself. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

What should be the inclusion criteria? The bare minimum is some sort of source confirming that the piece uses the claimed time signature, including the sheet music for the piece. For example, I could add that my Grande Fantasie uses 13/8, linking to my website where I have it published. However, this would allow anyone to write a piece with an unusual time signature, publish it on a simple website, and add it to the page. The easy solution would be to require a secondary source instead. What do you think? Wilh3lm^{Go here to trout me if I do a stupid} 21:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It already has to be notable, I believe. I removed the various "Wayne L. Perkins" entries for this reason. --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Now I wonder... What about Kyle Gann? He has a Wikipedia page, and his "L'itoi" (actually I'itoi according to his website) variations are listed, with this as the source. This was written by Gann talking about his piece. Does the notability come from the piece or the composer? More specifically, can his other pieces with odd time signatures be put on here (with the sheet music as the source), and, if not, why? Wilh3lm^{Go here to trout me if I do a stupid} 15:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply - I honestly dunno. For now, I’d suggest to do what I do and just BOLDly add new stuff, and if other editors object to the notability, it can be discussed on this talk page on a case by case basis. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I should also add that his pieces are self-published. Wilh3lm^{Go here to trout me if I do a stupid} 14:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Shapons Vindaloo

Do we have any official source that Shapons Vindaloo (composed by Vasen and later covered by Snarky Puppy) is in 23? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreskX (talk • contribs) 02:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

WHY IS THE ENTIRE REFERENCES SECTION BROKEN

WHAT HAPPENED? HOW? SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG! PLEASE FIX! Wilh3lm^Talk 16:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit which caused it, though I'm still unsure why it happened. Investigating and will restore the edit once it's fixed. — Czello 17:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Broken reflist at List of musical works in unusual time signatures

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Images

I think that this article could use some images of scores with unusual time signatures. Right now there's only the LilyPond embedding of the Rite of Spring for 2/16. What do you guys think? Wilh3lm^{Go here to trout me if I do a stupid} 16:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There could be copyright issues, especially if we consider that modern or contemporary works are more likely to use unusual time signatures. Dennis Dartman (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

We already have Rite of Spring included, and there are plenty of pieces listed that are PD in various places. Most of the stuff citing IMSLP should be fine, barring differences in copyright by jurisdiction. Wilh3lm^Talk 12:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)