Talk:Compound meter (music)

message: According to the definition in the current article, compound duple meter is in fact not a compound meter. That makes NO SENSE whatsoever. 79.138.177.245 (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It makes no sense 

message: Can someone who actually knows what Mardilh is on about please merge his stuff into the main article?  I'd do it myself, but I don't quite understand it; I do understand, though, that he's saying that there are multiple definitions, and I'd like to see his alternate explained properly.  
-- TimNelson 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge request 

message: Having had a fair bit of music theory in the country of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and Wagner where I grew up, I can say that I never heard of this distinction of simple vs compound metre ever before, and would be interested if this concept exists outside of English-native countries. Of course you learn the difference between e.g. a 3/4 and a 6/8 metre, being arithmetically the same but musically very different, in that one is divided into three, the other into two beats. The 3/4 would be a simple meter in my understanding, as each beat can be divided into multiples of 2, while the 6/8 is a compound metre, as each beat is divided into 3 or multiples thereof. Put simply, if the note filling or occupying one complete beat of a bar has to be dotted (in the 6/8 this is a dotted quaver (British English), or dotted fourth note (US-English)), than you have a compound metre. But of course there is much musical appeal to be gained from blurring those lines, as happened right from the Renaissance (e.g. in the Tourdion, Publié par Pierre Attaingnant, Paris 1530) to Bernstein, as in the West Side Story example given in the main article. Mathi80 (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Phenomenon? 

message: That song is definitely a good example of additive rhythm, but it's not (4+4+1)/8. It sounds to me most as (2+3+2+2)/8 (the bass drum makes this quite clear), but I found here: http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/scorchVPE.asp?ppn=sc0010568 that it is notated as alternating 4/8 and 5/8 bars which doesn't make that much sense as the bass is tied into the second, fourth bar and so on. Starting with a 5/8 would make more sense IMHO. If it's really written as 9/8 originally, than I would maintain that it is (2+3+2+2)/8. Maybe someone could corroborate who has access to the original sheet music or Sting's brain? ;) I'm sure there was a section on this topic (no, not Sting's brain, the meter of I Hung My Head of course!) in this very discussion article just yesterday but today it's gone?! Mathi80 (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sting's I Hung My Head 

message: I "undeleted" this article, as there is no given reason why the article was completely wiped and replaced with a redirect. To delete or merge an article, you need consensus The best way to get this is to put this up on the official Articles for Deletion page. Even if you expect a copyright violation, you still need to say something on this page, and put up a speedy delete template on the article page. Thank you.
— trlkly 01:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, consensus is not required. Wikipedia:Be bold encourages obvious cases like this one to be carried out without a formal proposal and consensus. However, since you have objected, it is only fair to discuss whether this should be a separate article. It seems to be almost completely duplicated (word for word, in fact) in the subsection Meter (music)#Compound meter. What is your rationale for keeping an article that duplicates a subsection in another? While we're about it, doesn't the proposal to merge Additive meter into Time signature also have a bearing on this matter?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undelete