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

message: 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: , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Additive rhythm

message: *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)
thread_title: Discliaimer overkill

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Skye Sweetnam - Sharada

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Works in... != Works with one bar in... 

message: (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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Anyone Who Had a Heart 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  These seem to be mistakes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Starsailor 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hey Ya 

message: 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)
replies: text: Right you are. I moved it. Korny O'Near 18:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm glad I'm not crazy. PrettyMuchBryce 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The White Stripes - Take Take Take

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rapunzel 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Watcher of the skies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Theme From The Terminator 

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

message: Has an unusual time signature, but my ears aren't trained to know what it is. marbeh raglaim 01:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sheryl Crow's "Strong Enough" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tetragrammaton 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Was the mass deletion on September 20th on purpose? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Beethoven's Sonata 

message: 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)
thread_title: Giggy Smile