Talk:Pyramid Song

Baroque pop?

I am removing the above genre classification from the sidebar for this song, which in no way resembles baroque pop. Actual examples of baroque pop for comparison: "God Only Knows," by the Beach Boys, "Walk Away Renee" by The Left Banke, and, in a legitimate stretch, "In My Life" by The Beatles. Probably not Radiohead, and definitely not this song. Drasil 05:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue that it should be officially classified as baroque pop (stupid genre name, imo. probably nothing should be officially classified as "baroque pop") but it does fit a lot of the definition. This is Radiohead's most '60s/psychedelic orchestral pop/George Martin sounding song, isn't it? Anyway, to call it "art rock" isn't particularly any more meaningful than to call it baroque pop. 172.150.161.39 07:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Time Signature

The entirety of the time signature section seems to be original research.Relaxing 01:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

When does something count as original research? The time signature has been discussed on rh messageboards a lot. Most parts of this part of the article seem to reflect the general opinion on those mesageboards, apart from the last part (the part about the swing time) that is wrong if it means what I think it means (and I was about to change that).If you would exclude messageboards as sources it will be very hard to say something sensible on this subject, but I think it is too important not to mention it.--Merijn2 10:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

if its taken form a forum, then that should be cited. but i dont know what is the mystery about it. its clearly 8/8 devided 3 2 3· Lygophile has spoken 05:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. Messageboard postings would not be reliable sources. Relaxing 16:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

..hmm no wait sometimes it moves the 1 back by 3/8, so it varies between 5/8 11/8 and 8/8 8/8. and possibly a few of the 11/8 is better interpretable as 8/8 3/8. thats the timemeasure, and thats nonnegotietable. "All my lovers were there with me" and "And we all went to heaven in a little row boat" are 5/8 8/8 3/8, and "All my past and futures" and "There was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt" are 8/8 8/8· Lygophile has spoken 05:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

and the very very first one is 5/8 11/8· Lygophile has spoken 05:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

and just before the lyrics start its 5/8 8/8 8/8 11/8· Lygophile has spoken 06:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

it ends in a few 5/8 11/8· Lygophile has spoken 06:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

But now it IS original research. When I have time I am gonna rewrite the section and I am gonna try to reference it with posts on a forum (if that is allowed). I would also have to learn how to reference in wikipedia --Merijn2 21:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no 5/8, no 11/8, nothing that complicated. The whole thing is just in an odd arrangement of swung 8/8 (3+3+4+3+3). It's really quite simple to discern once you get used to the fact the the "strong beat" is in the middle of all those groups of 3. If you really want to get complicated, you could say it's in 24/8 (or two bars of 12/8), in groups of 5+4+3+5+4. By the way, analysis of time signatures is not really something you should have to reference. The reference is the music itself. 60.234.208.29 11:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

i hear that more often, but if you count as 3+3+4+3+3 your counting 16th not 8th. and there is no reason whatsoever to count it in 16th. the piano playes a note on the third 16th and the 13th 16th, but thats no reason to count it in 16th. it is 8th. and if you just listen to it, the second measure/bar starts at 6/8. its: 3+2 3+3+2+3 3+2 3+3+2+3 3+2 3+3+2 3+3+2 3+3+2+3 3+2 3+3+2 3. its not complicated at all, they just shift the "1"· Lygophile has spoken 12:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

and its certainly no 24/8 or 12/8. how the hell do you count 12 in one bar?· Lygophile has spoken 15:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You can count it in 24/8 because it is in a swung time, and I wouldnt want to say it changes time signature everytime the most heavily accented beat is not on the one. Merijn2 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

i dont see that resulting in 24/8, but anyway...its not just an accent, its the fact that he presses all the notes instead of only about half, and presses them tightly on the count instead of somewhere around it, apart from the harmonical change· Lygophile has spoken 02:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

is 8/8 even a time signature? wouldn't you just consider it 4/4 sub-divided into eigths? - LukeU

why? in that idea, 4/4 is 1/1 devided in fourths· Lygophile has spoken 14:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have written a very basic new section about the time signature. I will expand it and reference when I have more time.--Merijn2 01:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

im not gonna waste time edit warring. but tell me, why, why would you count it 3+3+4+3+3 only because the piano notes are played that length? it is 5/8 11/8 5/8 11/8 5/8 8/8 8/8 11/8, if you listen, yu obviously hear a first count, a bar start, at 6/8, and the other locations. there are more people that noted hearing 11 counts in a bar, because there occasionally is. and people occasionally refere to it as 16/8, because they follow the 3+2+3 pattern, but often do not hear a "1" on the second 3+2+3, because it was 3 counts earlyer, 3+2 3+3+2+3. it is as i say· Lygophile has spoken 14:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For a start, I dont want this article to say it is in this or it is in that meter, because no doubt somebody is gonna disagree about that and change it according to his own pet theory. Second, when I have more time and I'll expand this section I will mention that the chord changes are on weird places .Finally, I am trying to find out what the drum pattern exactly is, but it remains the same and it always stresses the same notes, so your theory would only hold for the piano not the drums.--Merijn2 20:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

take a look at the list prior to my first edit. it had many different theories. one more absurd then the other. but what do drum patterns matter anyway? drumming contra is not unusual· Lygophile has spoken 13:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's in 4/4. Very clear once the drums are playing. --LeftHandedGuitarist 18:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys are brilliant. I'd definitely go to the 3-3-4-3-3 argument, would not say this is a 4/4 whatsoever, I think when the drums come in, thats when it's even more noticable. ~ no account —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.44.16.10 (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, obviously you should listen to the drums if it's the rhythm you want to understand! But no, 4/4 doesn't do it justice. What's clear from listening carefully to the drums is that he is playing 1/4 notes on the ride cymbal, with jazzy snare strokes on the upbeats revealing an 8-beat (8/4) swing pattern, broken down as alternating 3/4 and 5/4. That is, it isn't really an odd time signature, but it is oddly broken up! The piano has actually been playing this identical (swing) pattern right from the start (the song begins and ends on the "1" of the 3/4 measure), although it's difficult to discern before the drums reveal the beat. Specifically, the piano chords' rhythm is merely a repetition of five chords in alternating 3/4 5/4 time, with a chord on the first beat of each measure, with the one in the 5 bar being held for two beats and followed by a chord on 3. The two syncopated chords coincide with two (of the three) snare strokes. No idea WHAT this talk of 11/8 (etc.) is all about! The fact that the entire song is in swing time is absolutely crucial to any rhythmic understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.94.232.12 (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

well, did you ever think to notice 3+5+3=11?· Lygophile has spoken 23:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need citation for attempting to decipher the time signature?? Are we actually expected to back up musical analysis with hard evidence? The only way we would be able to do so is if Thom Yorke suddenly wrote a Radiohead biography in which he explained the finer details of their songs! (Oh and by the way, the current analysis is quite good, although it would do to mention somewhere that fundamentally it is 4/4 or 8/4 or whatever. And to those who think it is in 5/8 and 11/8, please, just because it's syncopated doesn't mean it's not in 4/4.) 125.238.57.108 05:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys are brilliant. I'd definitely go to the 3-3-4-3-3 argument, would not say this is a 4/4 whatsoever, I think when the drums come in, thats when it's even more noticable. ~ no account —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.44.16.10 (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The current analysis in the article does not sit well with me. "21 eighth notes grouped as 4+4+5+4+4"? I can't hear that at all. I hear sixteen 8th notes grouped as 3 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 3. Tritone 04:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The song throughout is in 11: 2+2+3+2+2. It isn't in some broken-up eight pattern. Listen to the piano. It plays quarter note, quarter note, dotted quarter note, quarter note, quarter note every measure constantly. The drummer swings the subdivisions making it a little tricky in the second half if time isn't paid attention to closely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.236.186.2 (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone actually seen the sheet music? I totally agree that it's not 4/4, but I tend to agree with the 8/4 statement. It's common to divide 8/x into 3-3-2, and I don't see (after counting the whole song) where that pattern breaks down (slight rubato notwithstanding). Yes, Radiohead writes in odd times, but let's not make this more complicated than it is. Ever heard of bars out of time in music? That's when composers decided to write a bar or two out of time, rather than having to make the whole thing in 56/4 time. Anchoress (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't get what is so complicated about it, everytime I count i always get 7/4 11/4 4/4, assuming that the first 2 notes are half notes. --Pritoolmachine2806 (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm not signed in, or anything, but I really don't understand what is so confusing about the time signature. It's 4/4; common time; in swing time. It's just two dotted quarter notes, a quarter note tied over the bar to another quarter note, then two more dotted quarter notes. (|q.q.q-|-qq.q.| horrible representation, but it might work) When the drums come in, there's no crazy things going on, it's just 4/4 swing. I can play this on piano to the song. I've written it out. I have appreciation for the vocals, though, as the plain piano at the beginning trips me up, but still. It is not that complicated. This is making mountains out of molehills, if anything. I've read that they can't read music, so why would they intentionally write something in varied time signatures? Maybe they did, but the song can be counted in 4/4 swing, and it makes sense, so I intend to stick with that explanation. If you were to write it out with a base of 8, you'd write it in 12/8, unless you wanted to cut the measures in half for some reason, which would be 6/8. Of course, NoteWorthy Composer has ruined any effect classical training would have on me. Sorry, I'm not signed in, but I would sign here if I was. 71.228.189.210 (talk) 19:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Listen to yourselves you idiots. A time signature section should be mentioned based only on the controversy here. It is a widely disputed topic that I personnally know has been addressed at both hunter and berkley music schools. Put the time sig section back in if only to address the controversy. (and yes 8/8 is a time sig. And no it's not just 4/4.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.252.221 (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the title came from the pyramid-shaped time signature (see: Pascal's triangle). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everweb (talk • contribs) 20:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving out time signature. As has been mentioned the pattern for MOST of the piece (especially when the drums are playing) is 3+2+3 (alternatively if you choose to subdivide into 3 it would be 9,6,9). If you get the feel of the phrasing it would be likely written as "3+2+3/8" this also avoids phrasing over the bar line. And yes you will find classical music using "+" to explain the phrasing. 9+6+9 would be unlikely because no one wants to use "/24", and "/12" would result in phrasing over the bar line. London prophet (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC) London Prohet

As it is hard to find it in the history, for the record I've added a copy of the old Time Signature section for help with any future discussion. It's from this old version of the page.

I read this article to find out about the time signature and found nothing about it. As there is so much discussion of it and many musicians are puzzled by it, I feel that the article would be improved by addition of a well sourced section on the time signatureRobert Walker (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the description from GreenPlastic Radiohead:

"The song is infamous among fans for its time signature, which many find hard to discern or even nonexistent. However, one possibility is that “Pyramid Song” could be based around an uncommon subdivision of 8/8 time (3+3+2) in which the eighth notes are swung. This could also be expressed as 16/8 time subdivided as 3+3+4+3+3. Another interpretation which can be found be following the drum pattern is a cycle of 5/4-4/4-4/4-3/4 that repeats itself throughout the song."

Robert Walker (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Old Time Signature Section

The song is noted for its odd and often misinterpretted time signature. While its meter is indeed complex, "Pyramid Song" is not ametrical. A possible way (among many) to think of the underlying rhythmic pattern is as follows: sixteen eighth notes grouped as 3+3+4+3+3. The piano plays the first note of every group. The song is in a swing time so the odd eighth notes are twice as long as the even eighth notes. The irregular beat of "Pyramid song" has frequent 8th note rests that give the complex rhythm its start stop feel. On most of the song, the drum pattern seems to consists of 3+2+8+3, usually with a tom roll making up the last unit of three.

The time signature is 4/4. The piano being syncopated doesn't change this. The piano rhythm is 2 dotted eighths, 2 eighths (tied) and then 2 more dotted eighths. Here it is drawn in paint: http://i.imgur.com/zG70VFn.png This adds up to two bars of 4/4. The drums, the melody of the song all indicate this. In no practical musical notation would you ever see a convoluted series of time signatures (3+3+4+3+3) when it can be easily notated as 4/4, with 4 bar phrases throughout the entire song. It is best to go with the simplest notation possible, so 4/4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.141.239 (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you, but until you provide a reliable source discussing the time signature, we can't add it to the article. Popcornduff (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Top of the Pops

The article states

"The song was played on Top of the Pops in May 2001, although the performance never aired"

I'm convinced the latter part of this statement is false; I clearly remember the broadcast (and the baffled look of the teenagers in the audience), and the reference cited does not state that the performance never aired. Propose removing the second part of this sentence.Gareth8118 19:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I clearly remember it being aired on ToTP too. It was the first time I'd heard the song. I'm going to go ahead and change this sentence. Cloudy 14:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the title

Feel free to call me a nutter, but by any chance, does the title "Pyramid Song" come from the following... at the end of the video, a light (the protagonist's soul?) dances in the sky with four others, and before they shoot off into space, they form a line of three lights (three clustered together into the central light) which look a lot like the belt of the constellation Orion -- and, as any good conspiracy theorist knows, the three Pyramids of Giza are lined up like the belt of Orion (well, as it was 10,000 years ago, allegedly). Or, is that more of a backwards reference in the video? Or, am I reading too much into it?! Dave-ros (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Influences on Lyrics

Is there any reason to think the lyric came via Tom Waits' "Clap Hands" rather than just directly from "The Clapping Song"? Neither "Clap Hands" nor "The Clapping Song" seems to include that exact lyric, instead both using, "They all went to heaven in a little row boat". Bakert (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pyramid Song. 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/20120206154836/https://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2001&cutting=121 to http://www.followmearound.com/presscuttings.php?year=2001&cutting=121

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) 22:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

What does "Pyramid" refer to?

I remember hearing a claim some time ago about how this song is called "Pyramid Song" because its structure uses the numbers (3, 3, 4, 3, 3), which correspond to number of sides on each of the faces on a pyramid. Can anyone confirm whether this is true? Partofthemachine (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Partofthemachine: That's just a fan myth with no basis in reality. The name is more easily explained by the fact that the lyrics were inspired by an exhibition of Egyptian art Yorke attended — the working title for the song was "Egyptian Song". Popcornfud (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: Do you have a source for the Egyptian art origin story though? Because otherwise I can't put it in the article. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

That's already in the article, and cited to a reliable source: The lyrics were inspired by an exhibition of ancient Egyptian underworld art Yorke attended while Radiohead were recording in Copenhagen Popcornfud (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)