Talk:Rhythm

message: * basic role in music
* on beat/down beat up beat/off beat, maybe seperate articles?
* common rhythms: rock beat, surf beat, clave, etc.
* mention contemporary electronic music with its driving rhythm
** Please don't lump all electronic music in with dance music. In some cases it has no percussion at all. If you are going to talk about driving rhythm then please stick to the relevant genres. sugarfish 03:03, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Topics that still need to be addressed: 

message: Would it be correct to say that Rhytm is the most important element in music and why?
Florence
No, that would be a subjective opinion which does not belong in Wikipedia. I could, however, be said to be "one of the most important". 213.238.233.27 (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: wouldn't that just be weasel words? Tommy has a great username (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rythm the most important element in music 

message: A related topic, Percussion instrument has been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. Come and support the nomination there or comment on it.--Fenice 06:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: I have revised the article to eliminate the prominence of duration, which is an extremely abstract way of understanding rhythm. It has a sorry history, and is ultimnately based in a convoluted bit of medieval theology. My definition defines rhythm on the regularity of pulse, which opens the door to undertanding rhythm's role both in dance and in song, where the rhythms of beats and the rhythms of syllables cooperate. A modest plea: please consider the practicality of these ideas before reverting to the preconception that rhythm is duration.
MWM
:Sorry, I reverted you as you removed cited information without citing a contradictory source. Feel free to readd your point of view to the article without removing the cited information and its point of view. Hyacinth 12:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted you again. Hyacinth 10:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Basics

message: Some of these rhythmic concepts are very hard to understand.  Perhaps it would be helpful to put in some sound files to illustrate these terms better. Timothyreal 16:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which concepts? Hyacinth 21:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any sort of rhythmic concept.  Not just on this page, but any page related to rhythm.  For example, on the Swung Note page, it's a bit tough to read.  Maybe if we put up an example sound file, not just that page, but other rhythm pages, it'll become clearer.Timothyreal 04:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sound File Examples

message: Im beginig to do some research for Uni about rythm in the body and wether it is habitual or learnt, can anyone direct me to soem resources regarding this?
:Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 22:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Body Rhythm

message: As a painter, poet and philosopher my attempt to define rhythm resulted in following definition: Rhythm is the interval (disconnection) which allows creative force to implement a new element to the contents of the given work.
Without this (rhythm - interval) there would be no movement, no flow, only dead matter. This is the combination of basic laws of mechanics and thermodynamics.
The intervention of force is instantenous, this means that it does not consume time, time is created by reflecting on the percieved, therefore the repeatance of the force intervention is perceived as rhythm, and of course, we can adjust this repeatance to various meters, simple or complicated, and thus get various rhythms.
Artists do not simply manipulate the existing matter, they create. This is what distinguishes art from other activities. (Creative work is, of course, possible in any domain of human activity, which not usually called art.)
Rhythm allows distribution of matter/energy in space (painting, sculpture, dance etc.) and/or in time (thinking/speech/literature, music, motion pictures etc.)
Of course, more can be said, but I think this properly addresses the problem.
--Skerovic Slobodan 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DEFINITION OF RHYTHM

message: The paragraph currently ends off challenging readers to "Try playing Music with only melody or harmony, or both (without rhythm), it can't be done."  While this may be true, it's not very good wording for an encyclopedia.  I'll leave it the way it is for now, and let everyone decide whether or not this needs to be changed. Sandwiches99 06:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; it's poor wording.  It's also slightly inaccurate.  Arguably, psychological studies show that once the interonset interval between sound events becomes long enough, we can no longer create meaningful rhythmic groups.  If you held a chord for a minute, then changed the chord for a minute, then had silence for two minutes, and then had a third chord and a fourth chord coming at equally long intervals, would we be able to hear anything like "rhythm" in such a sequence of sound events?  Or what about spectral music that sometimes consists of sounds whose timbres or pitches are gradually changed or morphed without ever stopping?  There's nothing like rhythm in such sounds, and many composers refer to such an organization of sounds as music.  Such things rarely occur in folk musics or indigenous musics, although sustained chants or music consisting of rather continuous humming for religious purposes may approach this ideal of melody or harmony that moves so slowly that it might be considered arrhythmic.  So, yes, the wording should be changed, both because it is unencyclopedic and because it is (in some rare cases) wrong. 76.118.181.158 03:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of wording 

message: I have some doubts about this edit. Others have already reworked the heading, commented on portions of it inappropriately, and deleted material they deemed to be "nonsense".
--Atavi (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and changed the opening section back to how it used to be. The concise and clear definition is much better. Liffey (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Doubts about edit

message: Maybe some of you know the site "whatthefont": You can submit any font as graphic and will get the name of the font used. Isn't there such recognition service or at least catalogue that helps to specify the name for a known ryhtm?
Like: is it a tango or a mambo? This time I'd like to know the origin of a rhythm like: |....- - |- - P P | where any dot is a eighth, any hyphen a quarter beat, P is a quarter pause, 120bps.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.5.122 (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WhatTheRhythm 

message: The section "Rhythm in Music" ends thus: "Another piece of evidence suggesting that rhythm is the most fundamental aspect of music is that percussion instruments were likely in use long before stringed instruments. Tribal groups dancing to music made only with percussion instruments is an ancient human practice, which reportedly continues today. The three fundamental elements of music are rhythm, melody, and harmony."
There is no citation for this claim.  This "evidence" seems to overlook the primordial presence of the Human voice, which makes the ability to create melodies innate.  Most tribal dances I've ever run across seem to include singing or chanting.  Moreover, any audible  sound has a tone, and so it doesn't make any real sense to me to try and establish the primordiality of rhythm over melody.  They seem inextricably bound up and "equiprimordial".
In any case, the ever present human voice should not be forgotten: music doesn't equal sound made by instruments.
--Adynatoniac (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I also don't think that rhythm needs POV pushing. Hyacinth (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And what does this mean: Rhythm is equivalent to "beached is brew". Sounds like gibberish to me. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The origin of rhythm 

message: - This simple system is now used worldwide particularly by Djembe players such as Chuck Berry and Jelly Roll Morton.
i dont think they were djembe players! or anyway they werent know for it if they were.
:Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  African music 

message: Has anyone heard about idiometric playing of music? Has this anything to do with rhythm?
--Jidu Boite (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idiometric 

message: I've found these two very old deletions, never reverted: 
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhythm&diff=229534248&oldid=228714027
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhythm&diff=238487435&oldid=237597649
Do you all think it is worth recovering them? --Jotamar (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one looks like original research in essay form. Not worth restoring, IMO. The second one had mostly been restored, with the exception of the "External links" section. I just put back what bits weren't already here. Most of the deleted external links are either dead, commercial, irrelevant, or not in English, leaving the one that I did put back. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. Jotamar (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old vandalism 

message: To 203.153.223.98:
I have nothing against you adding to the definition of Rhythm. It's just that you changed a quote - and quoted segments should not be tampered with. If you can find an appropriate place to put your modification, please do so. --Tim Sabin (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition by 203.153.223.98 

message: *However, recent evidence shows that certain parrots, cockatoos and elephants share this ability.
I removed the above from the article as the paragraph didn't mention an ability. Hyacinth (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Parrots, cockatoos, and elephants

message: I have commented out quite a bit of content that is patent nonsense. As Hyacinth noted above, science  has many examples of non-human species employing rhythm. Birds are just one; there are many others (whales and rattlesnakes come to mind).  We need to talk about whether any of these ideas belong in the article as this particular author is famous mostly for being wrong. Dusty|💬|You can help! 19:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, years later, there is still a bunch of weird 18th-century style crap about animals not being able to detect rhythm. My advice to whoever is pushing this crap, take a walk in the woods one time and you'll be changing your tune. ;) Certainly for an encyclopedia to be repeating this crap as if it is the current state of scientific belief is a pretty awful attack on science. Disgusting. I'm gonna take some out, but judging from the fact that the crap is even still in here, somebody will likely revert. If you're reading this in the future... please help. 76.105.216.34 (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commented out nonsense about hominids 

message: I'm not sure of the best place to ask this, but I've started a discussion over at Template_talk:Infobox_song, which essentially asks whether tempo and key should have their own parameters.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.220.114 (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Musical parameters in infobox 

message: Sooner of later, somebody is going to want to know about this. This morning, I noticed what appeared to be a lone nonconforming reference format in parenthetical referencing style (also known as Harvard referencing style). Then I noticed another, and another, and another. Upon examining the edit history, I found that this  format was established in this edit, on 5 December 2004, and has remained in place down to the present. Nearly three years later, on 5 November 2007, User:Atavi added a reference in a different style (footnoted) with this edit. There was no effort made to change the existing parenthetical references, either at that time or subsequently, as further references were added in both formats, perhaps because the discrepancy was simply overlooked (just as I did not at first notice there was more than one reference in parenthetical format). Following the procedure outlined in WP:CITEVAR, I have therefore begun changing the nonconforming footnote formats into parenthetical ones. At the same time, I have begun adding reference links between the inline references and the alphabetical list of Sources. There is a further, though smaller problem, which is that according to WP:CITESTYLE, it is not just a matter of having the inline citations in either footnote or parenthetical style, but rather one of using a consistent style within each of these global formats. At the moment, there are at least five different styles used here, jumbled together in the list of Sources, Further reading, and footnotes. It is for this reason that I am using Template:Wikicite, rather than the more frequent Template:cite book, Template:cite web, etc., or Template:citation, since wikicite permits retaining all of the diverse current formats while sorting out which one deserves to be regarded as the established one—or the one for which consensus can be obtained.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference formats 

message: Inconsistent spelling of 'meter' vs 'metre'. 150.229.102.73 (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Meter vs metre

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rhythm. 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/20080216021405/http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/discoveringmusic/ram/cdm0401slat1of4.ram to http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/discoveringmusic/ram/cdm0401slat1of4.ram
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "As well as perceiving rhythm we must be able to anticipate it."
Really? It's not referring to metric cycles that are entrained, but to rhythm.  Tony (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced claim 

message: I have major problems with the indented quote from Cooper and Meyer (1960) at the top:
:Rhythm may be defined as the way in which one or more unaccented beats are grouped in relation to an accented one. ... A rhythmic group can be apprehended only when its elements are distinguished from one another, rhythm...always involves an interrelationship between a single, accented (strong) beat and either one or two unaccented (weak) beats.
First, there's a comma splice after "another", presumably caused by the use of  the ellipsis points (which should be spaced, anyway). 
Second, there are logical problems in the definition—a particular problem when only one source is relied on. Why are "beats" the focus, rather than notes? What is beaty about an 8th–16th–8th note succession? Is that not rhythm? "Are grouped" ... what, grouped to the right or to the left in a score, or either? Does "accented" refer to a phenomenological accent (Lerhahl and Jackendoff, 1983)?
Tricky subject, weird article. Pinging  Tony (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition obviously confuses rhythm with meter. Perhaps the operative phrase is "may be defined". Either that, or we are to understand that "beat" does not necessarily entail periodicity, but even then, are defined points in time necessary for rhythm to exist? Does a wailing siren have rhythm? What about radio static? The sounds of passing traffic on a busy highway?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. So what to do? I think we'd be better off without that quote. Tony (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that quotation could be lost without doing any damage to the article. However, I have just been reviewing the content, which does nothing to contradict the quotation directly. It should not be difficult to find reliable sources that describe things like "free rhythm", "asymmetrical rhythm", or "unmeasured rhythm". I shall have a look around, and see what I can come up with. Ironically, the article Metre (music) does a better job covering these things.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: for ditching the quote, prominence in lead like that is also problematic stylistically, but on the whole it's just really lazy when someone could probably paraphrase a better source. Acousmana (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referenced claim at the top 

message: Early in the article, we read "Rhythm is related to and distinguished from pulse, meter, and beats: "(note the colon).  Then there is an indented text that does not include the word 'pulse' at all.  This makes for poor text and should be changed.  As some-one who does not exactly understand what rhythm is (despite this article), I am loath to make a change. Kdammers (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  pulse