Talk:Quintuple meter

Acceptance to add songs

Can I add the song "Fandango" by band Pain of Salvation? Khullah (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source confirming it is in quintuple meter, yes, of course.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

John Carpenter

I remember seeing the film producer/director John Carpenter being interviewed about some of his movies like Halloween, The Fog, Escape From New York, and The Thing. He was asked about the theme music. He said that his father taught him 5/4 time. He used it in all of those movies. According to him, he was the first to use 5/4 time for movie music. The interview was in the late 90s or early 2000s on United States television. Patnclaire (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That source could use a little refinement, but the article currently lacks any discussion of the use of quintuple meter in film music. If those Carpenter movies really are the first time 5/4 was used in film music, it would certainly be worth noting, if for no other reason than as proof of how conservative the Hollywood industry really is, since they all date from the early 1980s—a good 15 years after the meter started showing up in television music.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Grudge is misclassified

The Grudge by Tool is essentially all in 5/4 (or arguably parts of it in 5/8), not partially. There's one part where there's like a 3/4 overlaid over 5/8, but basically the whole song is quintuple time. I think the source cited was making a comment about the opening riff sounding like 4/4 to him (dunno what he's smoking, but it's a matter of opinion I guess), rather than saying that only the opening riff was 5/4.

This is all WP:OR, so I will refrain from adding it to the article. But in any case, The Grudge is under the wrong category; it's all in quintuple time. --13.12.254.95 (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, as long as the source indicates otherwise, it will have to stay where it is, but please do try to find a better source and if you succeed, by all means make the correction.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that The Grudge and Rosetta Stoned should switch, because there are several parts of Rosetta stoned in 11/8, 12/8 and 4/4 68.150.111.220 (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. So. I remembered at least a brief interlude where it switches to some other time signature, and I checked some drum tab, which I'm not sure I trust, but it's claiming brief sections in 2/4 and 7/4. In any case, I suppose that technically the "partially in 5/4" is correct, because of a couple of quick sections that aren't. But also, the statement that only the intro is in 5/4 is blatantly, exorbitantly, manifestly wrong. So what I've done is left it in that category, which is supported by the cited source, but erased the comment about only the opening riff being in 5/4 -- because, and I am sorry that this is technically WP:OR, but it is plainly obvious to anyone that the majority of the song is in quintuple time. The source is frankly kinda wrong, but it supports where the song is categorization and the categorization of the song is technically correct. This satisfies Wikipedia policy while also avoids repeating a blatant falsehood. Reasonable compromise? --13.12.254.95 (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Across the Universe is not quintuple time

Just counted it out. 4/4 or 2/4 yes; 5/4 no. Try it yourself. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you checked Fujita et al. (the cited source), to see how they managed to fit it into bars of 5/4?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I just checked a score (not the Fujita one admittedly, but they should all be the same) for Across The Universe and it's definitely 4/4. It drops into 5/4 for a bar for the "across the universe" phrase but then back to 4/4. There's also a bar of 2/4 but that's about it. At most we can say that it contains the odd bar of 5/4 but it's not 5/4 in the way that, say, "Light Flight" is. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A caution: There is absolutely no reason to suppose that different transcriptions will use the same barring, whenever there is any kind of irregularity of meter. That said, it sounds like this may have been put in the list (it was inherited from the List of musical works in unusual time signatures) on the strength of a single bar, or at most a few, and was mistakenly put in the wrong category ("All in 5/4" instead of "Partially in 5/4"). At the moment, the best we can do is put a "disputed" note, with this new score, and wait until someone can confirm that Fujita et al. also has only the stray bar in 5/4 (I don't have this book, nor do I have ready access to it).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Further to the above: Having now looked at this "score" (it is actually a lead sheet), the only 5/4 bar appears to be a 4/4 bar with a pause (fermata) on the last beat. This is difficult to establish without knowing how the accompaniment goes (for example, do the drums and bass keep up a steady pulse through that bar?). I agree that Fujita et al. cannot be that much different and so, even without actually seeing that source, I am moving this title to the "partially in" department (though even there it seems marginal).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Jerome. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure, Derek. Thanks for calling attention to this problem.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Emerson/Emmerson and Tarkus

We have a source described as:

• Emmerson, Keith, Greg Lake, and Carl Palmer. 1980. "Tarkus". [N.p.]: Manticore Music Ltd.

Two questions about this:

• Is this "Emmerson, Keith" (2 m's) the same person as the Keith Emerson (1 m) from Emerson, Lake & Palmer?
• Is "Tarkus" the same thing as the album "Tarkus? Is it normal to refer readers to a recording as the source of information? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

From the format, it would appear to be a citation to a published score. It is certainly not acceptable to reference a recording as a source in such circumstances (after all, there is the famous example of Eugene Ormandy's performances of The Rite of Spring conducted from a score re-written throughout by his assistant conductor in 4/4, so that he would not get lost).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Emphasis on 15/8 inappropriate

Half the lead is devoted to 15/8, and there are two videos to illustrate it right at the top; but this seems (judging from the examples given later in the article) to be relatively rare compared to for instance 5/4, and one of the videos seems not to really be 15/8 anyway but a repeating pattern of five bars in 3/8. Much of the text about 15/8 in the lead seems to be about dividing it into irregular patterns that are not clearly connected to anything being quintuple. After the lead, there is almost no mention of 15/8 in the rest of the article. I suggest that if 15/8 is notable, it should have its own article not titled "Quintuple meter"; and the article called "quintuple meter" should focus primarily on 5/4 (as it does now... only the lead doesn't fit the article). 188.182.238.181 (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You are perfectly correct about the relative scarcity of compound quintuple meters, but that in itself argues against creating a separate article. The main reason it dominates the lede is the necessity of explaining two different ways in which that meter can be subdivided and still be regarded as quintuple (five beats each subdivided into three parts, or three beats each subdivided into five). Irregular divisions of 15/8 or 15/4 of course do not constitute quintuple time, any more than the odd bar of 5/8 or 5/4 establish quintuple meter for an entire piece of music. The last two sentences of the lede make this clear, in case readers may be assuming otherwise. Compound quintuple time can of course be notated as five-bar repeating patterns of 3/8, just as simple quintuple time can be notated a regularly alternating bars of 3 and 2. Perhaps this material should be removed from the lede and placed further down in the article, in a section titled "Compound quintuple meter", or something similar.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Quintuple meter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090413165017/http://www.classicrockmagazine.com:80/news/vintage-pink-floyd-interview-part-1/ to http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/news/vintage-pink-floyd-interview-part-1/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

More examples of modern music in 5/4 time.

I've been keeping track of songs with the 5/4 time signature as I come across them for a while now and I've found plenty that I think this article ought to mention. I have no idea how to edit, so here they are if anyone who knows how to wants to add them. 24.225.50.168 (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Twice as Hard by Interpol - WTF? by OK Go - A Good Man is Hard to Find by Sufjan Stevens - Never by Andrew Huang - In Her Eyes by Josh Groban - Spin the Bottle by Juliana Hatfield - Water by PJ Harvey - From Eden by Hozier