Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures/Archive 1

message: It's cool to see so many updates! I've been having fun listening to some of the songs mentioned that I never realized were in odd times. I just wanted to open a dialog because I think there are a couple of strange entries here. For instance Led Zep's "The Ocean" is really a 4/4 song with a 7/8 measure thrown in during the main riff. Someone placed it in 15/4, which seems wrong. Even if you were to count this song in 15, wouldn't it be 15/8? (I moved it to 15/8, though I think it really belongs in 7/8, and made a note about the riff). Also, "Master of Puppets" by Metallica is another one that's mostly in straight time (4/4 & 2/4), but there are a couple of 5/8 measures thrown in (I don't really think it would be considered anything as exotic as 15/4 by any stretch). Same goes for the outrageous 61/8 attributed to King Crimson's "Discipline". I just gave the song a listen. It sounds like a long section of 5/8 with some other modulations happening periodically. I somehow doubt Fripp, Bruford, et. al. were counting to 61 (though you never know with such heavy dudes). It seems a couple of the higher numbered entries here are people just adding up all the measures of a song that modulates through a couple of changes and claiming it as something more than it is. What do others think? --Dkaplowitz 05:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it time to split this into "list of works based on consistent irregular time signatures" (such as Mars and Unsquare Dance) and "list of works with a shifting pattern of time signatures" and even "list of works with an occasional odd-length measure thrown in". Then we'd see how un-useful the last two lists are (I'm half expecting someone to count up the bars in Copland's rodeoHoe-Down - say about 200 - note the 3/4 bar near the beginning, and list the whole thing as 403/4). David Brooks 19:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Back when this list was in the Time signature article, I proposed a minimum standard that all entries must be based on published sheet music; otherwise, there's no verifiability. I propose this again. Listening to a song and then guessing its time signature is original research. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There could be some kind of standard imposed, but there may be valid cases where the composer never actually wrote down his notes, or where "official" transcriptions or published volumes just aren't available. And who's to say that someone who's gotten an ISBN # for his transcriptions of a composer's work is 100% accurate all the time? Also, I have gotten a lot out of seeing the entries here and saying "no way that's in x time" and going and intently listening to the song to verify. I think people posting stuff here and being incorrect will only bring about more discussion when someone else argues why it's incorrect. Maybe that's too idealistic, I haven't been on the wiki very long. Music's an art of the ears before it's a translatable written document. Anyway, I would rather see a forked page with shifting time sigs (that could have stuff that only has 1 or 2 time sig changes) and leave this one to songs that are either entirely or more significantly in odd times. --Dkaplowitz 04:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Getting inspired to listen to old favorites with new ears is wonderful, Dka, but Wikipedia isn't the place for discussion or discovery. It's a secondary source for information verifiably published elsewhere; the official standard is to be able to cite sources for everything in every article. Please read WP:V and WP:NOR. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some of the entries here are kinda' funky, no? 

message: I inserted the word "usually" before "grouped as either (3+2) or (2+3)" although I'm not sure that's what I meant either. Many of the orchestral works listed, at least, have no indication in the notation that they are intended to be subdivided, and I think we are talking about the natural human reaction to look for a subdivision in the rhythm. So, yes, it's hard to listen to Mars without thinking of 3+2, although I believe there is a recording where the conductor is thinking 2+3. The Tchaikovsky could go either way, or different ways in different measures. But would we say "4/4, subdivided as 2+2"? I didn't give the same attention to the other entries (7/8 et al) although they probably need checking. Thoughts? David Brooks 19:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you. I think the groupings would best serve the discussion if they were only indicated in the examples given, (if there are in fact any groupings therein). To just say 5/8 (in general) is 2+3 or 3+2 really isn't helping this discussion, IMO. But to say that this or that section of a song is grouped thus is actually helpful for those who haven't heard it (or for those who are having a tough time hearing how it's subdivided). --Dkaplowitz 04:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grouped as 

message: I think we should just all agree to disagree. This list will never be complete or accurate enough. I apologize for the reckless deletions, but I think we are all guilty of acting childish about this crap. There is too much we don't understand about time signature, or odd time signature, I dont want there to be any more controversy. This list is insignificant.Time signatures are alot more mysterious than we think, lets leave it at that and put this list to rest. Its just gonna cause more arguments that will never get solved because there are not enough sources out there and none of us can prove anything about what we say here.
:Well, I don't agree with you. I think this list is as cool as hell. We might not agree on many things, but there can be some compromise, I'm sure. I wouldn't give up. Time sigs are like math, they are units of time...it's very concrete. We just have different ways of grouping those units of time. You prefer 89 at once, I might prefer 16 of 5 + 1 of 4. If the artist intended 89, then I'm the oddball for thinking in smaller fractions. P.S. I was trying to edit your "additive signatures" entry above before you deleted it and changed it to this. Here's what I was saying, take it with a grain of salt:  
::I'm not an expert, but I was always under the impression that simplicity reigned when figuring out time signatures because if you think about it from a sight-reading standpoint, do you think it's easier to forget whether you're on the 73rd 8th note in a passage of 89/8 or if you're in the middle of one of the repeating groups of 5/8 or 6/8, or whatever? You might have a point if you say that's not important, however, you also have to ask whether it was intended (or logical) to be in the huge time signature. Does something in 41 or 89 really sound like it's just one giant phrase full of that many notes, or does it sound like a lot of 4/4 with a measure or two of 3/4 thrown in for rhythmic tension, or to shorten the beat for dramatic effect or something? Maybe I'm taking crazy pills but I think the simpler answer's always better. I can't help but feel like Led Zep weren't thinking "15" in "The Ocean" but that they were thinking 4/4 + 7/8...it sounds more logical when you listen and count it. It's been a while since I've read Gardner Reade's "Music Notation", so I'll have to check it when I get a chance to see if there are any "rules" or guidelins. I doubt there are any dogmatic rules. (And I'm not even sure if that text is still considered a standard reference work). Just my $0.02. Dkaplowitz 05:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 07:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's cool that you like to be challenged. This article, by my understanding, is about trying to give accurate examples of real songs in "irregular" time signatures. It's providing a service to people who would be curious about that. And according to Wikipedia's guidelines we're supposed to be citing "established" resources that support what we're putting up here...all else would be considered "original research", which wikipedia isn't about. Anyway, good luck to you either way. Dkaplowitz 12:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most of this is original research, we aren't breaking any new ground.  Listeners today couldn't really care about counting time sigs, and alot of the more advance time sigs are not even countable so that makes it even more useless. The irregular meters being documented here are all easy to do, I'd say that programmed music such as hip hop where the beats adhere to perfect, mechanical timing is more difficult, because we as humans are naturally shifty time keepers. Transcriptions for modern songs go alot farther than they did when classical notation was enough to describe everything that went on in a song. Most of the ones that you can buy are only good for playing the main melody on an upright piano, they are not even close to being precise. With all the production techniques that are used today, that kind of notational method is from the dinosaur ages when compared to how complicated most contemporary popular music can get. 3fk3d54d 19:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to let the list go 

message: Is that song REALLY 5/4? It sounds like a simple syncopated 4/4 to me. // Gargaj 12:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why we should set a verifiability standard for this page, as I have repeatedly proposed. 90% of the entries here are original research. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primus - My Name is Mud 

message: Ok Pink Floyd's "Money" and The Beatles' "All You Need is Love" are both grouped as 21/8 when they are 7/4.  I understand where this person is coming from but I disagree.  Both of these songs are in 7/4 in a swing rhythm and therefore have a triplet feel (stronger at some parts than others) which is why the person who put these songs put them in 21/8 instead of 7/4.  By this same logic though, any song in common time with a swing rhythm would be categorized as 12/8 (three triplets for every quarter note).  I think that this way of counting should only be employed when the triplet feel is felt so much more strongly than any other way of counting it, and I don't think that's the case here.  I plan to change these both to 7/4 unless someone can convince me that they belong at 21/8.--Hraefen 00:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Before changing Money, you might want to check Talk:Money (song), and the second paragraph of Money (song). I'm not saying they're necessarily right, but it may provide valuable context. --Arcadian 01:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the 21/8 theory is sort of quaint, and this song could technically be interpreted as 21/8 (in some evil, parallel universe), people who get paid to transcribe music generally (dare I say universally?) agree it's in 7/4 with a triplet feel. Check "Pink Floyd Guitar Tab Anthology",  for just one reference. I'd also be willing to bet that of the half a dozen or so published Dark Side of the Moon transcription/songbooks there's not one that notates it in 21, but I have yet to verify that. Entry moved back to 7/4. Dkaplowitz 03:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that both songs are played in 7/4.  The sheet music I have of "All You Need Is Love" lists it as 7/4.  In addition, I find the 21/8 section to be needlessly redundant, as it is essentially the same thing as 7/4. Spartacusprime 01:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is settled here, but it's not settled on the Money page, so I figured I should point out for finalities sake here: Take Five is in swung time (although it's jazz swung time, which is supposedly subtly off from strict triplet swung time). If Money is 21/8, then Take Five should be 15/8. But I think that one we can agree on; the composer refers to it as "5", and our published music notation on this page actually notates it as 5/4 explicitly (although I don't know if that was sourced from actual published sheet music--but I myself have seen actual published sheet music which I'm pretty sure called it 5/4, unfortunately it was nearly 20 years ago). Nothings 03:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 21/8

message: As others have noted, some of the songs listed don't really belong in the current framework. There are a number of songs that have alternating time signatures, but shouldn't be classified as a single irregular time signature. Chief among these are pop songs that have a 4/4 feel but chop off a beat here and there for some added energy. Kelly Clarkson's "Low", for instance, has 3 bars of 4/4 and one of 3/4, but there's no way the sheet music for it would read "15/4". Then there are the songs that alternate between two or three time signatures, like many of your prog rock favorites. The question is, what should be done with these? I can think of four possibilities:
* Keep them as is
* Move them to a separate article
* Make another category in this article for them
* Remove them, and place some kind of explanatory note at the top of the article
Of these, #3 might be my favorite - the songs get categorized, but they don't get in the way of the real alternate-meter songs. What do other people think? Korny O'Near 16:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about that last part; a few of those entries don't belong in there. In addition, maybe there should be yet another category, for songs that contain more than one irregular time signature? Songs that contain a 5/8 section, and then an 11/8 section, for instance. Right now they're just dropped into one or the other, or (incorrectly) into the time-signature-combinations section. Korny O'Near 11:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternating & multiple time signature songs 

message: The entry for this song claims that whether the studio version is 17/16 or not is "hotly debated", but gives no citation to it. It was made by an anonymous user who made several edits on that day and has never edited before or after from that IP. It also isn't clear whether this means that the live version is unambigously 17/16 or unambiguously 16/16, assuming a live version exists.
I've listened to the studio version of the song, and it is true that tapping my hands to it, I find myself tapping out an odd count, presumably 17. However, the song opens with a straight 16 (3+3+3+3+2+2) keyboard part, which continues unchanged under the heavily syncopated, widely spaced main riff. I can see why it would be hotly debated therefore, but I think it's much more likely to simply be a deceptive rhythm, much like the syncopated swung-time riffs that are sometimes misheard as 11/8, like Radiohead's Pyramid described above, or King Crimson's Indiscipline. Unless there's some citation to the "hot debate" that really legitimizes that this isn't just a mishearing, I think the entry is best removed. Nothings 09:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garden Party: 17/16? 

message: You'd need to cover almost EVERY prog album. There is no point in doing such a list... It's like making a list for "songs in C". (unsigned post by anon 201.1.49.166)
: I disagree that it is useless.  There is no such thing as useless information.  What degree of usefulness it has, though, is a matter of debate, obviously.  I agree with our anonymous friend above, "This list is cool as hell".  And so what if it will never be complete?  When is an encyclopedia ever complete?  The search for knowledge is inexhaustible.  If you don't like this list, simply unwatch it and focus your energies elsewhere, and let those who want to work on this list do so in quiet enjoyment.  Live and let live.  JackofOz 10:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This list is useless and will never be complete