Talk:Swing rhythm

message: There are several other articles on this subject already, and several different POVs. See the See also list in the article.
Let's try to keep this article simple and accurate, and dare I say NPOV. There may be room for some merges, or it may be that the subject is so complex that we need them all. But somewhere we need a relatively simple article IMO, as it's a topic that even some experts get wrong. Andrewa 19:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

message: Hmmm, I see User:Hyacinth has now redirected this page to the article Swung note, an article on which he has previously worked and that he has also reverted my edit there.
However, he seems to have made no attempt to merge the content to any other article, nor to contact me on my talk page, at Talk:Swung note or here.
:See User:Andrewa/swing rhythm for the latest version of this content, a few small but IMO significant improvements, more may follow. Andrewa 03:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now of archival interest only, as the material has been copied back to the article, see below. I'll delete it if and when the dust clears, which doesn't look like being any time soon, see further below... Andrewa 23:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this could happen all in one article? Hyacinth 22:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, see Wikipedia:Point of view and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I don't see how we have that conflict yet, all I see is a problem with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Hyacinth 22:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm familiar with those project pages, and glad to see that you are also aware of them. See also comment below. Andrewa 00:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV?

message: I'm still thinking about the reference, in an external link cited above, to Dexter Gordon as an example of a player of non-triplet swing. Perhaps it's significant that he's one of the key people in bebop? See User:Andrewa/swing rhythm#Exactly what is swing? (old version) for some thoughts. Andrewa 21:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bebop etc

message: G'day again Wahoofive, I like your refactor of the article in my temporary page. My one reservation is that I think that with a swing and a couple of similar phrases should occur either in the introduction or TOC, to serve as unastonishing targets for the redirects. 
Perhaps it is now time to move this content back to the article namespace? As you and I are the only editors of the temporary version, I'd be quite happy for you to copy-and-paste it. If others start to edit my temporary copy, issues of history and GFDL compliance become a bit more complicated. Not insurmountable, but probably an unnecessary complication. Or, I can do this if you prefer and are happy for me to, but I think the history differences will work better if you do it.
I think we have agreed that the redirect from swing rhythm to swung note is inappropriate, so the sooner this is fixed the sooner the encyclopedia will be that much better. Content in my user pages and/or the article history isn't part of the current encyclopedia of course, and of very limited use to those who reference it. Copying the content back would also fix a couple of double redirects that User:Hyacinth left outstanding, and which it seemed silly to fix when IMO the new version of these redirects would have been both temporary and wrong.
There is still work to do, but that should take place in the main article space unless there is some good reason not to, and I can't think of one. I think I've now been quite patient enough for purposes of harmonious editing. Andrewa 01:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but I suggest we hold off on redirecting Swung note until we've worked a little more on this one. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Andrewa 09:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Perhaps time for action?

message: It's starting to look good IMO!
I'm a little nervous that we don't now have any link from swing rhythm to swung note, even in see also. I'm still not convinced that a merge is going to work, and until it happens we should have a link IMO. 
Interested to see what the results are of the library research referred to above. The term swung note is not in my normal vocabulary, but I think I see what it means, and if I'm correct it deserves an article of its own IMO. Andrewa 21:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and re-add Swung note if you want. I was assuming we were going to merge them shortly so it wouldn't be necessary.—Wahoofive (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. ISTM that the concept of a swung note is probably derived from that of swing rhythm, but that they are significantly different concepts. Andrewa 09:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Progress!

message: The beat is divided unequally in a lilting fashion that implies three, rather than two subunits, though the subdivision is executed with such flexibility and variety as to give only an impression (and not an exact statement) of these values. The way in which the beat is subdivided in swing rhythms is exceedingly complex and may change constantly ....since they defy precise notation, swing eighth-notes are variously represented as shown:
:graphic showing straight eighths, dotted-eighth-sixteenth, triplets, 12/8 time
From the article Transcription:
Western notation is weak in its ability to represent the rhythms and timbres of jazz. Thomas Owens (1974) ...found... many complex details of pitch, rhythms, and vibrato...Many notes were of lengths for which we have no symbols (e.g. 15th notes and 19th notes).
:Admittedly he was analyzing Charlie Parker, not the most straightforward of players. Several other examples were provided of researchers who couldn't pin down the rhythmic elements. (—Wahoofive (talk))
::Interesting. Yes, there's a lot that you can't specify on a chart. Please sign your posts on talk pages. Andrewa 06:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for now signing the above post. Andrewa 18:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excerpts from "The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz", 2nd ed (2002), article on "beat" 

message: According to A Jazz Lexicon by Robert S. Gould (1964, but there's also a newer edition), the word "swing" as a verb didn't come into wide usage in the jazz sense until around 1935, although as a noun it was used at least since 1888, generally as a synonym for jazz, or the general "feel" of jazz. Even after the verb usage came in, it was used with a variety of meanings, not necessarily even regarding performance technicalities (let alone rhythm specifically). Gould's book provides multiple citations. (—Wahoofive (talk))
:Interesting. But the word swing was used for a rhythm before that, see my latest contribution at Studies in Swing. Andrewa 07:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what you're seeing on that page. "Swing" seems to be used as a genre there. —Wahoofive (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm assuming that swing rhythm is a feature of the swing genre. It's certainly a feature of these recordings. Andrewa 04:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical usage 

message: Eeek! That was a bit of an omission! Fixed I think! Andrewa 21:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch! —Wahoofive (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a bit of a struggle, but I think we're getting there. Thanks for your refactors and other input. Andrewa 03:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Latin jazz]]

message: (Sigh) It's now been redirected back to swung note. No discussion here, no consensus, it just happened a few weeks ago. This time at least there's some attempt at a merge. I've now raised it at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Swing time etc, please comment there. Andrewa 23:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As there was little interest shown at the pump, I'm going to go along with the redirect, and just rework the intro so that the many (inappropriate IMO) redirects to swung note are accomodated according to the principle of least astonishment. See this old version of the archive for what discussion there was. Andrewa 19:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Here we go again