Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Additive rhythm

There is an article on additive rhythm. It says "the term additive rhythm is also often used to refer to what are also incorrectly called asymmetric rhythms and even irregular rhythms", so it pretty clearly doesn't apply to most (all) of the things in this article. It claims that it is more of an eastern music thing rather than a western music, but hedges that with "most western music". Is there actually any western music that is primarily additive? If there was, should we list it here? The only example I know of that seems to qualify is Miranda Sex Garden's "Monk Song"; but I think they're too obscure to justify adding a section on the subject just for that song, and besides I'm the author of the only notated version of the song that I've seen: [1], which makes this more the domain of original research rather than encyclopedic. On the other hand, it seems to me that people who are interested in reading this list to find out what's out there would be served to have things like this mentioned to them. Nothings 03:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Additive rhythms are quite common in 20th century "classical" music; Stravinsky, Bartok and Messiaen were some of the greatest composers who wrote lots of music in irregular meters, but also many of their successors wrote more irregular music than regular (and some of it is very irregular -- or weird). If all these works should appear on this page, they would outnumber all the rock songs. So is this page really relevant, when the bulk of the works are missing? And if they were added, the page would be even more database-like. Apus 09:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Go To Sleep - Radiohead

I believe it is not in 10/4, but rather alternating bars of 4/4 and 12/8. Still interesting.

--For What it's worth, the sheet music has it notated as alternating bars of 4/4 and 6/8.

Songs that don't even HAVE a time signature

Besides Gregorian chants, I don't know if there are many such songs, but I know of at least one, a four-part choral piece called "This Marriage" by Eric Whitacre. How can you have a song with no time signature, you ask? Well, the best answer I could give you is that it sounds sort of like the "songs" you make up when you are just whistling/humming to yourself, not thinking about rhythm, key, melody, or anything, just singing for fun. You can listen to it at Eric Whitacre's Myspace. Are there enough of these songs to justify making a new section on this list, or perhaps even a new list? -MatrixFrog 01:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

There are many such pieces in the repertoire, but no, there shouldn't be a list. Do we have a list of People who don't have telephone numbers? There's no significance in NOT having something. Anyway, this list sucks due to lack of accountability and verifiability, and why create new lists of junk? —Wahoofive (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's really the same thing at all. In general, modern western music always has a time signature and somewhat regular repeating beat. If there are more than, say, 40 or 50 such published songs, that list would be just as useful as this one. Although, admittedly, that's not very useful.

By way of example, Federico Mompou wrote various pieces with no time signature, such as: the first of the Impresiones Intimas (the measures contain successively 1, 10, 12, 10, 8, 12, 4 and 2 crotchets); and the 6th Prelude (which has no time signature or bar lines at all).

The telephone number analogy doesn't work for me. The norm in Western music is time signatures, and "regular" ones at that. Anything that's different from that is worthy of note. I don't agree about the lack of verifiability - every item on the list is completely verifiable by reference to the relevant score, which is published. Whether it's "junk" is a matter of opinion, but I don't regard it as such. JackofOz 02:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I just think it would be a huge list — it's not as unusual as you seem to think. If you want to make a verifiable list, go ahead. But List of works in irregular time signatures is mostly unverifiable because most of the entries consist of "Oh, I just listened to the record and it kind of sounds like 21/4". —Wahoofive (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to make a distinction between items that are verifiable and those that have actually been verified. Anything can be added to almost any article in Wikipedia, and it will stay there unless somebody else reverts it, changes it, or demands verification. If somobody can come up with sheet music that proves the song is in 39/4 or whatever, then it's verified. If the music disproves that, then it's gone. But the fact that nobody has challenged a song yet does not mean it's going to remain unchallenged forever. Eventually, everything will be verified, or removed. It's a process thing. You can't have a perfect list on day 1. And maybe there never will be a perfect list. But that's no reason not to start on one. JackofOz 06:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear! If you want to challenge a specific piece of music, it's your job to verify that it's actually in a different time signature from what this page says. —Keenan Pepper 07:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

WHAT???? You mean if I create a page that says that George Bush has a two-inch-long penis, it's your job to prove it's a different length? Wrong. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.</sarcasm> But seriously, if no one's disputing a fact, then there's no reason to demand that it be either verified or removed, as long as it's potentially verifiable. If you have a specific dispute, then we can have a discussion which may only end in either verifying it or removing it if the dispute can't be resolved, but just saying "these are all garbage and should be removed because people just listened to the music themselves and don't know what they're talking about" is not productive. —Keenan Pepper 03:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The thought of such music had occured to me also, and was the very reason I opened this talk page. Now that I think about it, though, I realise that this is a page for unusual time signatures. Music with no time signature can not be said to have an unusual time signature as they have none at all. Sure, they fit the unusual part, but not the time signature. Definitely, create a page for music with no time signature (you could link it to this one and vice versa) but don't put them here. Watto the jazzman 06:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Irregular" = POV

... but I don't want to argue that the article should be renamed, or sanitized or made politically correct or anything. What I would like to do is add something like this near the top:

It should be pointed out that the some of these meters are only considered "irregular" from a Western point of view; some music, notably that used for Bulgarian dances, uses such "odd" meters as 5, 7, 9, 11, 15 and other numbers of beats per measure regularly and extensively. (Like many such meters, these are all additive rhythms, which are built of simple units of 2 and 3 beats.)

There may be other examples of "irregular" meters which are culturally common, but I think this is one of the most notable. (Some Bulgarians consider our [Western] music remarkably square and boring for its lack of such meters!) What d'ya think? --ILike2BeAnonymous 10:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Asymmetrical" might be a better word. "Irregular" is the term used in Time signature. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"asymmetric" is the correct term. "irregular" is just ahine.--feline1 17:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

(You meant to type "asinine", right, kitty?)

OK, I'm going to add the "disclaimer", though it seems pretty stupid to me to be retrofitting and fixing something that's broken here; oh well. --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean AHEIN.--feline1 17:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Discliaimer overkill

• The newly added disclaimer does not belong here. Yes, 'irregular' is open to interpretation and varies from culture to culture, but this kind of lengthy discourse belongs at the link already provided to irregular time signatures. You have a point, but put it where it belongs...lists are primarily that... lists... not places to discuss the very thing which the items are supposed to be examples of.--Hraefen 20:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Skye Sweetnam - Sharada

From what I can hear on the iTunes music store, this song doesn't appear to have any patterns of 13 in it. I just hear basic 4/4 with some 12/8 in there. Can anyone back this up? Saltbridge 00:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The verse seems to be 4+2+4+2+4+2+4+4, or 26 beats; someone could hear the beat twice as slow to make 13 beats. It's not very persuasive, though. Korny O'Near 22:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Works in... != Works with one bar in...

I've been noticing some entries with a comment such as "one bar 7/8 at the end of the verse". Should this type of thing be listed as a WORK in 7/8 ? Where should I move that? VdSV9•♫♫♫

You should delete them. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this - maybe it's best to have a separate section or sections for songs only partially in an irregular time signature. Any thoughts? Korny O'Near 20:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

or maybe it's best to just have a separate wikipedia for daft fan-boy lists, and keep this one for sensible factual articles :)--feline1 22:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's probably too late for that, given that this Wikipedia holds articles like "lightsaber combat". :) Seriously, though, does anyone have any opinion on that kind of separation? Korny O'Near 16:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone Who Had a Heart

(1964) "Anyone Who Had a Heart" by Dionne Warwick - "5/4, 4/4, to 7/8 and resolving on 5/8 in only eight bars" according to the All-Music Guide [2] I listened to this song and the characterization is quite misleading. The song is actually in essentially in a very slow compound meter. If you preview it on Amazon, all you'll here is something that sounds like 6/8 or 12/8. However, the song does mix it up more; but in practice, it all amounts to various combinations of 6/8 and 9/8, which one could write as 15/8 and such, but it doesn't seem to accurately capture the dominating triple feel--though it's not quite slow enough to call the whole thing 3/4 and be done with it. The 5s and 7s seem to me to more or less represent a higher-level structure, which is not what this list is for. However, if you accept notating it as random mixes of 6/8 and 9/8, then the dramatic, syncopated sections at the end do end with 7/8, which is particularly surprising in such a strong compound meter (although the syncopation supresses the compound meter and masks it--it comes across as 3/4 + 3/4 + 2/4 + 3/8). But that's still noteworth enough it's worth keeping it in there somewhere (especially since it's so old), but I'm not sure where is best. And somebody else should probably verify that I'm hearing it right, or find a more trustworthy source than the AMG link above for the original claim. Nothings 11:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard the song, but see the "Hey Ya!" entry for how it's handled when reality conflicts with an "official" reference. Korny O'Near 16:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, all the "Hey Ya!" entry does is cite the reference, with no comment about it being disputed. And my problem is I'm not sure why we should accept the AMG comment as at all official. Surely this isn't a list of 'things people claimed somewhere online'! Nothings 03:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This is already a list of "songs somebody thinks are in a weird meter". There's no verifiability to 90% of the content of this list. Why worry about the legitimacy of existing references? —Wahoofive (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, it's not that they aren't potentially verifiable, it's just that they haven't actually been verified yet. You are free to verify any of them if you want. —Keenan Pepper 13:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that all content stays unless I can prove it wrong? You have the verifiability policy exactly backwards. How do I un-verify something? Almost all the entries on this page are there because an editor listened to the CD, analyzed it himself (a process called original research on Wikipedia) and typed it in here, claiming that any musician would make the same analysis. In fact, there's no way to distinguish by listening between 7/8 and alternating bars of 4/8 and 3/8, or among 7/8, 7/4, 7/2, or 7/16. The only legitimate verifiable standard would be printed sheet music, which is not available for 90% of the listings on this page. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused, KP. What is your proposed verification method? In fact, this whole comment was because I did this research as best I could (except, as Wahoofive points out, it's "original research"). The song is noteworthy because it is as old as it is, and would seem rather a seminal pop-music event if the claims were accurate. It seems to me that, in fact, the claims aren't. I'd love to verify this further, but what am I supposed to do? Call Burt Bacharach on the phone? In fact, my actual stance is pretty much the opposite of Wahoofive's: published music can, in fact, be wrong (I know of at least two instances of time signature mistakes in sheet music I own), and popular press accounts more so, and a list like this is going to be more accurate if we rely on so-called "original research" (which we could also call "direct observation" instead; I don't think anyone's opposed to people posting transcribed speeches that they transcribed themselves) instead of press references. Of course that's not quite as clear cut and I can see why the original-research/non-verifiability is frustrating, though. Nothings 05:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

These seem to be mistakes

Can anyone check "Rusty Cage" by Soundgarden and "Morning Bell" by Radiohead? I wasn't able to "hear" that they are 19/8 and 5/4 respectively.  Grue  17:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Morning Bell By Radiohead is indeed in 5/4, at least the version on Kid A. "Everything in its Right Place" is also a 5/4 signature.

The two versions are indeed very different; the Kid A version is in 5/4, the Amnesiac version in 4/4. — sjorford (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I must've listened the wrong one then...  Grue  08:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Rusty cage indeed has a weird sounding riff near the end of the song, but I never actually counted the beats in it. VdSV9•♫ 10:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried, and it's difficult, but I think it alternates between 4/4 and 3/4. 19/8 is just silly. — sjorford (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Starsailor

I heard a Starsailor song on the radio that was in 5/4. No idea what it was, but maybe someone else knows? I know it's recent anyway, as it was being played to plug their current album. --Bonalaw 19:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ya

See also the discussion at Talk:Hey Ya!#Time signature. Hyacinth 10:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any source for it being 3*4/4+2/4+2*4/4? The beats in the songs are obviously eights, not quarters, so it becomes 22/8=11/4, just like Rolling Stone says.  Grue  22:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no source, though so far no one here has disputed it. There are a few flaws in your argument, the most obvious being that 22/8 is necessarily the same as 11/4. Is 6/8 the same as 3/4? Korny O'Near 22:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So, basically some respectable music mag says it's 11/4, and most Wikipedians were led to believe it's wrong? 6/8 may be different from 3/4 if it divides into 3/8+3/8. In our case 22/8 divides into parts with even number of eights so they group into fourths. That's why there is no 8/8 signature - it always reduces to 4/4.  Grue  07:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, what? Of course there is such a thing as 8/8. Sure, you count it (in your head, at least) as you would 4/4, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I have printed music right here that has a few 8/8 bars in it. After all, if 8/8 is impossible, so should be 4/4 and 2/2, as they could each reduce to 1/1. --Jemiller226 06:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're saying: that the basic beat is eighth notes. Dre even counts off "one, two, three" at the beginning of the song, but I guess you would say those are eighth notes he's counting off. How you're so sure of this I don't know; I'm not used to eighth notes getting the beat in a piece of music unless it's really slow. But if you're convinced of it then it's your right to change the entry. I will say that Rolling Stone and others are music culture magazines, and tend to be unreliable on the rare occasions when they get into actual music theory. Korny O'Near 04:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You contradicted yourself almost immediately in this first post. If you are hearing beats in the song then these cannot be 8th notes, they must by definition be quarters. If you (as Andre does) count of a song 1..2..3..4 then you are implicitly counting quarters. If he was counting 8th notes any musician worth their salt would be voicing that as one-and-two-and instead. The simple test: Do the snare drum hits in Hey Ya sound like backbeats or syncopated off-beats? If the latter the tune would have more of a reggae-infused feel. The relationship of those beats to the rest of the music is that of a backbeat, and therefore the pulse is clearly in quarter notes. The fact that nearly every bar apart from the skip resolves to 4/4 suggests that describing this song as either 22/4 or 11/4 is an utter nonsense. This song is in 4/4, with an occasional 2/4 or 6/4 measure injected. Since the fundemental pulse of the song is a 2/4 downbeat/backbeat phrase it is basically silly to describe it as being in an irregular meter at all. It is a regular 2/4 rock groove on the drums with other instruments generally resolving in 4/4 apart from in one bar. It should be removed unless we wish to consider 2/4 an irregular time signature. --Finnhiggins 08:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the issue to rest (at least temporarily) by nuking "Hey Ya". By the way, this article is a piece of shit that shouldn't exist anyhow. But hey, have fun trying to make something glorious out of someone's half-assed idea of "weird rhythms, man". --ILike2BeAnonymous 09:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be interested in the explination of time signature at that article. The article currently doesn't include the word "weird". Hyacinth 10:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've seen two arangements of Hey Ya!, and both have three measures of 4/4, one measure of 2/2, and two measures of 4/4. Whether or not this is 'original research' is irrelevant, because you need citations to add something to Wikipedia, not to take something off of it. But that's just a technicality.... Goldencrisp87 07:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Across this page there are a whole bunch of comments by Wahoofive about original research versus citation. I would argue that this entire page is citation, as we are clearly not discussing anything that isn't clearly available for verification by musically literate people. If I were to write Song-X-by-unsigned-band-Y here that might qualify as original research. But suggesting that it is not reasonable to cite recorded material when music notation is acceptable is a little strage: it's arguable that there are just as many people in the world who can pick time signatures by ear as those who can read music notation. There is no original research going on here, just correct and incorrect reading of sources. If somebody reads an article in New Scientist, fails to comprehend it and then makes an inaccurate entry based on this citation is this original research, or a failure of comprehension of the source? There certainly are some odd entries in this list - things like Hey Ya do not belong. Hey Ya is in 4/4 with the occasional 2/4 bar inserted at the end of the progression, regardless of what some tit at Rolling Stone wrote to make himself look smart. That somebody could claim a citation of somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about is an improvement on citing a clearly verifiable source for a literate audience (i.e: the CD) is quite surprising. --Finnhiggins 08:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A citation is "a reference to a book, article, web page or other published item, with sufficient details to uniquely identify the item." You appear to be arguing that this article contains information which is Wikipedia:Common knowledge and thus do not require citations.

I would argue that time signatures, especially irregular ones, are not "clearly available for verification" (Wikipedia is not writen for or necessarily by "musically literate people"). Time signatures are a convenience of notation. One can argue about the appropriateness of a specific time signature being assigned to a specific piece, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia may and should describing that argument.

• "Time signatures in Western music are determined by composers and generally remain fixed; nevertheless listeners are not obliged to interpret the metre of the performed music as written, and nor is their understanding or enjoyment of music always dependent on the 'correct' identification of metre--except perhaps in specific circumstances such as dances, where a particular motor response is expected."

Clayton, Martin (2001). Time in Indian Music : Rhythm, Metre, and Form in North Indian Rag Performance with Audio CD, p.201. ISBN 0198166869.

The above indicates that time signatures are difficult to figure out.

Hyacinth 09:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It is possible for a composer to write down a piece "properly" in a given time signature, get some fresh music paper, write down a series of totally unrelated time signatures, and then transfer the music over to this new paper, by carefully regrouping, tieing notes, and carefully placing accents and such to recreate the original sound. This demonstrates that it is impossible to be 100% sure from listening that you have determined what the composer wrote down (since he could have written down almost anything). However, composers do not generally do this, unless they are trying to make the piece of paper itself a work of art; because usually the piece of paper is a guide to musicians to the creation of the music itself, and they want this guide to be clear and effective, and thus they tend to write things down naturally.

So you cannot be 100% sure on listening, but in practice, with experience, knowing how what is written down in sheet music is supposed to communicate things to the performers, you can back-compute what the time signature most likely was. This is error prone, but it is not entirely random. And there is no evidence that your quote implies any of this. It says listeners do not need to determine time signatures, and their understanding is no less affected by determining them or not. It doesn't actually say that understanding them is hard. I have no problem with you arguing that this requires a level of musical literacy that makes it not common knowledge, but your quote doesn't support that argument.

Finally, I find your recent addition of numerous AMG links to be counterproductive. Citations are important because they address verifiability, which demands reputable publishers and specifically reliable sources. (Note that that reliable sources page is only a guideline, but verifiability is policy, and the verifiability page explicitly requires 'reliable and reputable sources.) I'm concerned in this case: I see no evidence that AMG is authoratative about music theory. In particular, I moved "Anyone Who Had A Heart" after listening to the song and determining that there was no reasonable interpretation under which you could claim it had all four of 5/4, 4/4, 7/8, and 5/8 (there is more discussion of this a few sections up). Because people are being fairly bitchy about original research here, I left it alone until I found the citation I added when I moved it to 7/8: Bacharach's page with an article quoting Bacharach himself (a primary source, in terms of the 'reliable sources' page) about how surprised he was when Warwick told him it had a 7/8 turnaround. If he was mixing up 5/4, 4/4, and 5/8 as well, do you think he'd be surprised to learn about the 7/8?

I do not know what process AMG uses to add information to their site; do they employ music theory fact-checkers, or require citations when authors report songs have odd time-signatures? It doesn't seem particularly authorative for citation for this aspect, especially if a single author writes each entry and is supposed to be accurate about all of the commerce, cultural impact, genre, and musical theory aspects; in fact I think they are rarely accurate about all 4--beware false authority. Unfortunately they don't provide citations themselves, either. I am totally convinced they're wrong on Anyone Who Had a Heart, and thus I see no reason to trust them on other songs.

Of course, published sheet music can be wrong as well, but we can generally agree that this is an error, not a lack of authoratativenes. Consider if the published sheet music simply clearly didn't match the song--the pitches were wrong, there durations of the notes didn't match. If someone published the sheet music to the Kingsmen's version of "Louie, Louie" and said it was in 7/4, we wouldn't accept this as a citation for adding it to the 7/4 section, and I hope nobody would complain and call it "original research" when people listened to it and said the sheet music was obviously wrong (although the wikipedia policy pages actually say we shouldn't do this!). I see no reason to expect AMG to be reliable about time signatures. As we all know, the time signature literature is quite sparse, and one has to wonder where AMG is getting its information from. Nothings 11:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If this list is to exist on Wikipedia at all I think it has to be accepted that it cannot be based on composer intention unless it is restricted entirely to classical music. In jazz or other popular forms it is not common practice for composers scores or lead sheets to be released to the public, and in many cases they don't even exist in the first place. One band that shows up here a few times - Dream Theater - write using a whiteboard. Other notable regular users of irregular time signatures write using computers and their music never exists in any formal standard form OTHER than the original recording. Therefore I think it's acceptable to say that a citation from a classical score is acceptable, but if you're going to make the argument that there should be no "original research" from listening then you're effectively paring this list down to a bare minimum and removing a lot of its usefulness to readers.

As for citations from music reviewers, they're worse than useless. Most music reviewers have zero formal musical background and any reference they might make to time signatures is based on hearsay from musician friends of variable competence.

And when it comes to citations from something like "The Real Book" or similar (when discussing jazz pieces) it's worth mentioning that most of these books are merely collections of transcriptions from the original recording by capable musicians. If anything this is one step removed from the original, definitive source being discussed - many early editions of the Real Book had some apalling errors in the transcription of chord progressions, and many still have mistakes.

I don't think Wikipedia's rules are set out in a manner that can actually deal in a sane manner with primary sources which are in audio form and which require specialist knowledge to understand. That is the case with many of the pieces on this list, so I think ultimately there are two sides to this discussion that make some sense: 1) that this topic be removed entirely as something impossible to align correctly with the nature of Wikipedia, or 2) that citations from definitive recordings are acceptable. --60.234.144.150 05:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothings - I'm not sure how a sourced opinion is counterproductive when compared to original research. I'm also not sure how the comparison between AMG and sheet music is relevent to this discussion as sheet music has yet to be cited (and thus contradict AMG). Hyacinth 02:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hyacinth, music reviewers like AMG or Rolling Stone do not have to undergo any kind of fact-checking by people familiar with either the piece or the area of theory in question. Similarly, the criteria for hiring such people is often more about knowledge of pop-culture and English than it is about any kind of even rudimentary knowledge of music theory. Citations from these people are about as authoratative as grafitti on a toilet wall, and certainly less authoratative than anything I or any number of other contributors might write here. Unfortunately your criteria for trusting expertise seems to be more to do with brand-name recognition than anything else. If you're willing to accept citations from AMG you should also be willing to accept them from dubious sources like mxtabs. --60.234.144.150 04:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: defense of this page as citation [common knowledge Hyacinth]: there are many ways to interpret the "no original research" comment in terms of this aspect of observing the work directly. If I am writing an article about a famous photograph, can I go look at that photograph, count the number of faces visible in it, and report that, or is that original research? WP:NOR says:

"Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."

If the photograph is itself the primary source (that has been published), am I collecting and organizing information from it, or doing original research? Regardless, this followup comment seems clear:

"In some cases, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely on primary sources, but these are exceptions."

It seems the basic argument here is that we are making descriptive claims the accuracy of which are relatively easily verifiable by reasonable adults with specialist knowledge, and thus this article does not fall into those exceptions. Even though this list seems valuable to many of us, it appears to fall outside the bounds of what wikipedia tolerates--not perhaps due to any inherent flaw of the list, but because it falls afoul of a rule designed to avoid certain bad things even knowing it might cull a few good things. Nothings 11:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you saying? The list has citations, one of which you have implied you find credible, authoritative, and correct by citing it. Thus the WP:NOR doesn't apply. Hyacinth 02:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed

• (2004) "Frances the Mute" by The Mars Volta - there is an effectively rhythmless 192-quaver section of the song just after the slow section, containing only quavers and rests, with the last note long. Its rhythm can be read as below. It is then followed by a 42/4 section, played as 3+4+3+6+8+8+8+2/4 ||--|-||----||||----||||--|--|------|||-|-|---||---||---|||-|-------||--|||-|--------||||--|---||||-|-|----||||||----|-|-|||-|---|||---|||---|-|-|||---|-|--||||-|-|-|-|-||--|-|||-|-|||-|-||||0

I removed the above because: Huh? Hyacinth 10:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC) ~

Someone removed this:

* (1997) "Paranoid Android" by Radiohead - 3 bars 7/8, one bar 8/8 (before and after the "ambition makes you look pretty ugly - kicking squealing gucci little piggy" and the heavy part that preceds slow part and ends music).

And replaced with (1997) "Paranoid Android" by Radiohead - middle section

I know it looks better and neater having it simplified. But to me it just removed information. I'll just add the 3 bars 7/8, one bar 8/8. Back in... VdSV9•♫ 14:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That was me who did that. To clarify, I didn't replace it per se, it's just that there were two entries for the song, and the less-wordy one happened to be the one in the correct place (Partially in 7/8). But more info is good. Korny O'Near 03:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The White Stripes - Take Take Take

Can someone verify that this song is 5/4? I don't really know much about time signature but there is 11 beats. So wouldn't it be 11/4?

For example in The Radiohead song Morning Bell (Which is correctly listed under 5/4) there is 5 beats. Know what I mean? Or am I just wrong? PrettyMuchBryce 06:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Right you are. I moved it. Korny O'Near 18:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad I'm not crazy. PrettyMuchBryce 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Rapunzel

Isn't Rapunzel by Dave Matthews band more like 11/8 or something? definately not 5/4 or 5/8 I think...

The instrumentals are in 5/4, just heavily syncopated. Korny O'Near 14:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

true, but there is the part at the end of the 5/4 run that adds on a few beats, not sure of how many, someone else could figure it out. Robbie 04:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Watcher of the skies

To whomever has posted this Genesis song. I finally had time to listen to it attentivelly, and the song is in 6/4. I haven't really listened to the whole song but even if there is a section or more in 7/4, it is not (even by close) the whole song so it was misplaced anyway... I just got to a part and thought it was it (by "it" I mean a 7/4 section) but actually it turned out to be a really syncopated 8/4. VdSV9•♫ 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking...

I was thinking of some of the changes I've made yesterday, such as Incubus's "Nice to Know You", which I removed for having been posted as a 7/4 compass, but I counted a 6/8 followed by an 8/8 (or 6/4 and 8/4, it's a six and an eight anyway, I can't be sure (ever) about "this is a fourth!" or "this is an eighth!" except relatively, of course... but I'm wandering off).

Then I thought of Idiot Box (same band), the Riff is 7+8+8+9/8 - 16/4 you'd say. This song wouldn't be featured in the list from my POV of the way the list is working insofar.

Then I thought Hey, a song that is in it's entirety 7/4 isn't "Irregular" per se, it has a very regular feel to it. I'd say uncommon, or unusual time sig, but not as irregular as... "Nice to Know" (seeing it as a 6 and an 8 ) or one of my favorites "Mushroom Cult" by Dog Fashion Disco that has an 8 + 9 riff (which I prefer over 17, although some people have stated this before. I would notate one compass as 8/8 and the next as 9/8) or, say Erotomania. Now that is irregular. Opinions? VdSV9•♫ 13:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The title doesn't refer to the general sense of irregular but to Time signature#Irregular meter time signatures. I think it should be changed to "unusual time signatures" or something, but it's more important to be consistent. —Keenan Pepper 16:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Unusual" is fine by me. I'd object to "uncommon", because "common" already has a specialized meaning for time signatures (4/4). As to the "Idiot Box" song, you could stick it in the "irregular time signature combinations" section. Korny O'Near 17:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not saying anything for such a long time, I was hoping more people would give their opinions on this, since we're not the only ones working on this list (like I really did much...). What do you say we change it here and there? Is there an authoritative source where these are called irregular? Or was it just what the editor thought of when he edited the time signature page? If it's the latter, I say we change both, move and redirect this one and change the name there. VdSV9•♫ 19:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Change it to what? Korny O'Near 20:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we find more synonyms for unusual? VdSV9•♫

Elsewhere in the Talk page, some people seemed to think "asymmetric" was a good replacement. Korny O'Near 22:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a terrible replacement. What makes 4/4 "symmetric" and 5/4 "assymmetric"? They're both symmetric with respect to time reversal, and I can't think of any other symmetries. The only thing these time signatures have in common is that they're rarely used in Western music. —Keenan Pepper 01:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Asymmetric usually refers to having multiple beat lengths in a single bar. If you played in a school or community band in the last 10-15 years, you've probably played something by James Swearingen who almost always tosses asymmetric 5/8 or 7/8 bars into his compositions. The 7/8, for example, are usually conducted as 1 beat of 3 eighths followed by 2 beats of 2 eighths or 2 beats of 2 eighths followed by a beat of 3 eighths. The conductor uses a modified 3-count pattern instead of a 7-count pattern.

Similarly, the well-known Blue Rondo A La Turk is 9/8, but it is laid out in such a way that there are 3 bars of asymmetric 9/8 (3 beats of 2 eighths followed by 1 beat of 3 eighths) followed by 1 bar of symmetric 9/8 (3 beats of 3 eighths). Leonard Bernstein used asymmetric meters quite a bit, too.

I think this would be a better criterion than just "unusual" or "irregular" because it's a little more objective...although still not 100% objective. Jzerocsk 14:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The word symmetry has a specific technical meaning in mathmatics and geometry and it bothers me to see it abused so. Can you cite a source that uses the word in this way? —Keenan Pepper 16:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Abused? That's a bit dramatic, wouldn't you say? :-) An eighth also has a specific meaning in mathematics that does not correspond well to its musical use... Different fields with different vocabularies, even using the same words with different or even conflicting meanings. That's not exactly uncommon. That said, Time signature mentions asymmetric meter in conjunction with irregular meters under the subheading of Unusual Meters. This dictionary that compares American musical terms to British ones lists it, too.

The problem with unsual is that to me it doesn't seem clearly defined either as a "musical term" or on its own. Unusual just means not usual. Depending on his culture and level of experience, one might think 6/8 is unusual. While I dislike irregular for the same reason, it does seem that it is fairly commonly used as a synonym for asymmetric, so that's at least a little better than just unusual, which seems the least descriptive of the lot of them to me. Jzerocsk 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

An eighth note has one eighth the duration of a whole note, so it corresponds perfectly to the mathematical meaning... The criteria for inclusion in this list aren't clearly defined in the first place, so giving it a "clearly defined" name would be misleading. For example, take the Tool song The Patient. It's perfectly regular and symmetric, never deviating from its quintuple meter. The only thing they all have in common is that they're unusual. —Keenan Pepper 19:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

My point is that a musical term need not share its meaning with a similar mathematical term. Sailors, equestrians and upholsterers all use tack to mean drastically different things.

Regarding the list itself, if it's simply an arbitrary list of songs people think have unusual time signatures just because they personally think so (and not because they meet some defined set of criteria), it starts to wander into the neighborhood of WP:NOT (being somewhat indiscriminate of a list). I personally feel that in any "List of..."-type article, having the clearest criteria possible for inclusion/exclusion helps keep the information relevant. Just one guy's opinion though; I'll let the consensus prevail. Jzerocsk 20:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Good points. We could always move it to List of works in meters other than duple or triple, but that might be overdoing it. =P —Keenan Pepper 21:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the way I see it, "assymetrical" would be interpreted similarly to "irregular", and that's what we are (or at least I am) trying to get rid of. OK, so assymetrical and uncommon are ruled out.

How about odd? Guess not... Keenan unknowingly suggested rare. I know that the list itself shows these signatures aren't that rare, just rarer. But hey, it's still an option.

This means we're left with rare or unusual so far. VdSV9•♫ 19:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote for unusual. VdSV9•♫

I agree, unusual is the best. —Keenan Pepper 01:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, "unusual"'s fine by me; though I was happy with "irregular" too. Korny O'Near 14:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Theme From The Terminator

Brad Fiedel, Theme From The Terminator. 13/8 (3 3 3 2 2). Yes? No? --70.82.177.68 02:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this too. Gatesofawesome! 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Ocean?

I believe "The Ocean" is usually counted as 4/4+7/8, not 15/8. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 04:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Tubular Bells

This is listed as '4/4 + 3/4 during the intro'. This is wrong - it alternates between 7/8 and 9/8 in a (4 + 3) + (2 + 2 + 2 + 3) sort of way.

Sheryl Crow's "Strong Enough"

Has an unusual time signature, but my ears aren't trained to know what it is. marbeh raglaim 01:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's 3+5; you could annotate it as just straight 4's. I don't know how it's notated in sheet music. Korny O'Near 01:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Tetragrammaton

An anonymous user added this:

• (2006) "Tetragrammaton" by The Mars Volta 0:00 - 2:20 -- 3/4 // 2:20 - 2:25 -- 10/4 (I dunno if this is an intentional deviation from 9/4) // 2:25 - 2:57 -- 9/4 (Definitely 9/4. Acts sort of like 2/4 + 2/4 + 2/4 + 3/4. A lot of upbeats played. And the silence at the end of this period is actually in the same time signature. I counted.) // 2:57 - 4:04 -- 3/4 // 4:04 - 4:08 -- 10/4 (Now it seems like this is being done intentionally) // 4:08 - 4:40 -- 9/4 // 4:40 - 4:54 -- 17/4 (Even though it seems like it would be the same time signature as the rest of the 'chorus' because it's cut from the audio, it's actually a way different rhythm. If I am correct, it acts like 4/8 + 6/8 + 4/8 + 4/8 + 4/8 + 4/8 + 4/8 + 4/8.) // 4:54 - 5:04 -- 19/8 (Just when you thought they couldn't sneak in another time signature. Acts definitely like 10/8 + 9/8.) // 5:04 - 5:08 -- 12/8 (Merely one measure, but it's worth noting that the last beat is ever so slightly shortened.) // 5:08 - 5:55 -- 3/4 // 5:55 - 6:47 -- 3/4 (This quieter section appears to be played in the style of a very rubato 3/4. So in other words, there is no exact time signature. Despite all the gaps, it still sounds like triple meter to me, but you can make your own observations.) // 6:47 - 7:09 -- 15/8 (This area has a scheme based in this meter progression: 8/8 + 7/8 + 8/8 + 7/8 + 7/8 + 7/8 + 8/8 + 8/8.) // 7:09 - 7:20 -- Varies (A meter of 12/8 and a meter of 13/8.) // 7:20 - 7:33 -- 7/8 // 7:33 - 7:56 -- No Time Signature (If you counted there might be one, but because of all the ambience and the guitar noises being off beat, it should just be treated as having no time signature.) // 7:56 - 7:59 -- 10/4 // 7:59 - 8:23 -- 9/4 // 8:23 - 9:14 -- 17/4 (4/4 + 4/4 + 4/4 + 5/4.) // 9:14 - 9:22 -- 12/8 (5/8 + 5/8 + 2/8 for the first measure, and 4/8 + 4/8 + 4/8 for the second measure.) // 9:22 - 9:45 -- 17/4 (Same as last one.) // 9:45 - 9:54 -- 12/8 (Same as last one.) // 9:54 - 10:00 -- 18/8 (One and one half measures of 12/8) // 10:00 - 10:25 -- 17/4 (Same as last one.) // 10:25 - 10:35 -- 12/8 (Same as last one.) // 10:35 - 10:39 -- 10/4 // 10:39 - 10:53 -- 9/4 (With a very slight gap at the end.) // 10:53 - 11:13 -- 4/4 (The tradeoff solos are playing 3/8 then 5/8. Also note that this is the first use of common time in the entire song.) // 11:10 - 11:15 -- 13/8 (Two repetitions of 7/8 + 6/8.) // 11:15 - 11:27 -- 7/8 (4/8 + 3/8.) // 11:27 - 11:30 -- 12/8 (One measure only.) // 11:30 - 11:37 -- 13/8 (Same as last one.) // 11:37 - 11:49 -- 7/8 (4/8 + 3/8.) // 11:49 - 11:55 -- 4/4 // 11:55 - 14:24 -- 4/4 (Very slowly.) // 14:24 - 14:49 -- 17/4 (Same as last one) // 14:49 - 14:58 -- 12/8 (5/8 + 5/8 + 2/8 for the first measure, and 4/8 + 4/8 + 4/8 for the second measure.) // 14:58 - 15:10 -- 11/4 (5/4 + 5/4 + 6/4 + 6/4.) // 15:10 - 16:22 -- 3/4 // 16:22 - 16:54 -- No Time Signature (Just random noises.)

Whoa dude, all this definitely doesn't belong here. If you want, start an article about the song (but be prepared to face accusations of original research). Only a short summary should go in this article. —Keenan Pepper 20:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Was the mass deletion on September 20th on purpose?

Looking through the editing history, I see that most of the content has been destroyed and/or deleted by a user with IP 220.236.151.54. Possibility that this is due to the user using a browser which has trouble editing content of more than x kB and the rest has been truncated? Kick1 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Beethoven's Sonata

Added the second movement of his Op 111 sonata. before anybody attacks it saying 6/16 is equivalent to 3/8 or 12/32, no it's not. firstly, because there is actually a difference in sound/feel between the two, but secondly (and more importantly) because that's what beethoven himself wrote (i have the score in front of me, just to be sure). and you can bet he knew what he was doing.

DonnyIDK 10:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

King Kong by FRank Zappa

ITs in 3/8. it even says this on the album. im gonna change that unless someone proves me wrong.

Giggy Smile

Faust are notoriously unreliable when it comes to song titles, but "Giggy Smile" is the rock'n'roll song with "Giggy Smile" in the lyrics. The song that's in 13/8th time is actually called "Psalter", but on this album, it's listed as "Läuft...Heist das Es Läuft Oder Es Kommt Bald...Läuft" ("Running...Do you mean it's running or will soon...Running"), which is a bit of studio conversation tacked on at the beginning. The song "Run" is in there somewhere as well. But the bit that interests us has always been called "Psalter", on other records, in setlists, and so on. So I changed that bit. Juryen 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)