Talk:Time signature/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

WikiProject Time assessment rating comment

Want to help write or improve articles about Time? Join WikiProject Time or visit the Time Portal for a list of articles that need improving.
—Yamara ✉ 22:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive

• Archive -- comments on early versions of article, and List of works in irregular time signatures when it was still part of this article

Video samples

You'll see I've added some video samples to this page made with my program [Bounce Metronome]. Can easily add any others of particular interest to this article or indeed any of the rhythm pages. Any particular requests for rhythm videos like this - with numbers or balls bouncing in time with the rhythm in 3D - that would be useful to add to Wikipedia? Robert Walker (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Meter vs. Time Signature

Much of this material seems to duplicate what's in the article on Meter. Although musicians use the terms Meter and Time signature pretty much interchangeably, in an encyclopedia we should take more care to use terms precisely. I propose that this article should focus exclusively on the notational aspects of time signature (perhaps expanded to include Renaissance indications of metric proportions, and give notated examples of things like 3+2/8 and extra-long signatures) and move whatever seems appropriate to the Meter article. I'd move to the Meter article:

• examples of various time signature (really meters)
• "standard time signatures" (again, really meters)
• all discussion of duple/triple, simple/compound (some of this is already present in the Meter article).

Wahoofive 19:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. This article should be useful and informative, not scientifically succinct. Hyacinth 21:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that if you moved the examples of various and standard time signatures to metre (music) you would have someone at Talk:Metre (music) saying they belong back in "Time signature". I think this article requires a short explination of what time signatures indicate (duple/triple & simple/compound) with a link to a more full explination at "Metre (music)". Hyacinth 17:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Still could use expansion for Renaissance versions, with links to topics such as Mensuration, Proportions, and the like. Wahoofive 07:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That sounds great. Hyacinth 17:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article is really difficult to understand

This article is really really dense and tough to read for someone unfamiliar with music theory like me. Just saying. Scott Ritchie 02:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Time signatures might be hard to understand at all without some rudimentary grasp of basic theory concepts (measures/note values/etc)... TrbleClef 08:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess the introduction could stand to have some more links. Here was what I was thinking when I read it again:

The time signature (also known as "meter signature") is a notational device used in Western musical notation to specify how many beats are in each bar and which note value (minim, crotchet, quaver, and so on) constitutes one beat. Time signatures may indicate meter, but do not determine it."

"beats in each bar" - what does that mean? What is a note value?

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Beat_(music) has your answer. Related terms have their own pages and should not have to be explained on this page. I think this page actually explains the concept of time signature quite well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.191.198 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Most time signatures comprise two numbers, one above the other. In text (as in this article), time signatures may be written in the manner of a fraction: the example shown at right can be written 3/4.

What do these two numbers mean? What's the difference between the top and bottom?

In a musical score, the time signature appears at the beginning of the piece, immediately following the key signature (or immediately following the clef if there is no key signature). A mid-score time signature, usually immediately following a barline, indicates a change of meter."

This sentence makes sense - while I don't quite get what it means (can't read music), I do know where to look for more information. This isn't the case with the first two sentences - I got stumped and confused about where to learn more. Scott Ritchie 22:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding note value, that article is linked. Would that not be an appropriate place to learn about note value if one doesn't already know them? Regarding the top/bottom number issue, that is discussed farther down in the article because the numbers mean different things in simple and complex meters. I agree that it is a bit unobvious, though.

Again, without some basic theory knowledge it is hard to quickly understand the concepts of the time signature... but that's why those articles are linked, right? TrbleClef 23:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as another non-musician, I'd find it really helpful to hear examples. Reading the linked articles made the theory clearer, but didn't help me to understand what this really means. This is especially true for sections that talk about theoretically equivalent time signatures that are practically different (e.g., the "rewriting meters" section). It need not be anything fancy; I'm sure a musician explaining this in person would do a little humming or table-thumping, and that would be plenty for me. --William Pietri 17:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Say, I mentioned my befuddlement on this topic to my girlfiend, who indeed did do some humming and knee-thumping. She also found this article, which has some nice examples, which made things a lot clearer to me. --William Pietri 05:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a little clearer, perhaps, but also inaccurate. TrbleClef 06:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Too hard to understand. I'm trying to self-educate myself on musical theory and the next step for me is to learn how time signatures factor into music. I cannot understand this article. It is no help.

I thought I had a basic grasp of time signatures, but this article made me think that they are far more mysterious than I had previously thought. All of the language is convoluted, since the article has no logical flow and uses technical terms when it seems easy enough to explain it in longhand for the layman; who, by the way would probably be the only person who would need to go on wikipedia to look up what a time signature is. Why are there no sound clips to help explain this? Why is the article primarily about technical details and obscure forms of music, some of which have been extinct or near that condition for hundreds of years? I know the devil is in the details, but you don't have to sacrifice complexity. It seems obvious to me that a basic introduction should be made, with language that even the least musical of people can understand, then you can go into the technicalities and complexities of music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weiwuweijoshua (talk • contribs) 03:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that people who admit they know nothing or little about a topic always think they know how it should be presented? Hyacinth (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

For example, regarding sound clips, see Wikipedia:Be bold and also note that there has been no request for sound clips with Template:Audio requested. Hyacinth (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that people who know something about a topic are so incapable of explaining it? And on top of that are not even prepared to accept any criticism.145.253.2.22 (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I must agree. I do know something about time signatures and musical notation; yet I find this article a classic example of the Wikipedia article that's written so that only those who already know about it can understand it — of which there are far too many examples throughout Wikipedia. Articles like this seem to be written to satisfy the author's own musings about a subject — which is, no doubt, gratifying for the author, but completely useless for someone who comes here to learn something. I could make a few suggestions, but this is a problem that pervades Wikipedia, and can only be addressed by an effort, on the part of authors and contributors to write for an audience who is not already knowledgeable. rowley (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is unimplementable except for those who are well versed in music theory. Diagrams of sound waveforms and frequency analysis, example sounds and simply more transparent text would make this article useful. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.180.115 (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the word "unimplementable" in this context. Is this a technical term in some field, that can be explained in plain English, please? I am also failing to see how diagrams of "sound waveforms" or "frequency analysis" can possibly be applicable to this subject. Could you give examples of "opaque text" that could be made more "transparent"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for sharper focus

I agree with what's been said, that there is serious crossover between this and the Meter article and that this article, while well-intentioned, is unwieldy. (Perhaps the Irregular Time Signatures should be moved to a new article, with cross-references?)

For clarity, the main cross-references in Time Signature should be to BEAT and NOTE VALUE. It should confine itself to simple and compound time, and to top and bottom figures in notation.

Additionally it's misleading to call a time signature a "fraction" , even if you're referring to them "in text". It encourages those who think 3/4 means "three-quarters of a beat"....FClef 02:34, 07 Sep 2005 (GMT)

It's a fraction of a whole note, more or less. But as for your main point, I don't think this article is too long, but it does need to stay focused on the time signature, an element of notation. If you're going to eliminate something, "Rewriting meters" would be a good place to start, although one could argue that it's explaining the limitations of the notation, it just doesn't do it well (plus it's a really theoretical item which belongs lower down). I strongly disagree that we should move more complex topics to other articles. They're lower down in the article for a reason, so that the basic stuff is at the top. 7/4 isn't any less a time signature than 3/4, even if it's used less often. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Wahoofive. I take some of your points. I've re-formatted the headings of this article while basically keeping the copy as is (some minimal changes made, esp. in paragraphing). Hopefully this not only makes the article easier to read, but also throws into sharper relief the areas where it SERIOUSLY overlaps with Meter. This may make jettisoning or moving some of that material a less burdensome task. And by the way, I love the history.

It is lamentable that the Meter article talks of "simple metre" and "common metre" rather thatn simple and compound TIME. This should be standardized, n'est-ce pas?

I find the explanation of compound time befuddling for those lacking theoretical background. I do feel that it is easier to think of the time signatures as: top figure = no. of beats per meaure and bottom figure = the beat unit.

I think that this should be retained for both simple and compound time. The explanation of compound time with the dividing and multiplying is best dealt with in a subsection immediately following - with a cross reference to NOTE VALUES. FClef 8 September 2005 03:39 (GMT)

Overall, I think your changes are good. There certainly is room for improvement in the "compound" explanation. I don't think it will be possible to completely separate "time signature" from "meter" since they're pretty closely related. It's inevitable that there will be some overlap in the articles. "simple time" and "compound time" are less often used, at least where I live, and "time" is so ambiguous I'm not sure that would help. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the section on mixed meters, with its examples. However, I want to point out that mentioning Telemann's use of a 256th note has two problems. One is that this interesting historical tidbit probably shouldn't appear in this article, but instead in an article on the history of music notation, and the other is that, looking at at least one published version of that particular piece by Telemann, there are no 256th notes to be found, just 128th notes. (I could be overlooking it, of course.) http://imslp.info/files/imglnks/usimg/e/e3/IMSLP98987-PMLP203419-Telemann-Intrada-2-violinen.pdf (The link leads to a PDF of scanned sheet music which is in the public domain, according to the web site.) In any event, I think the sentence, no matter how interesting to those of us who love trivia, should probably be removed from this article. Hmoulding (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your point is well-taken. It was I who added that sentence on Telemann, and I must confess it was done with a satirical intent. The earlier part of the paragraph was so breathless about an apparent "innovation" in the 20th century that I could not resist pointing out this historical error. Telemann's Chaconne does in fact contain a pair of 256th notes (I believe it may follow a dotted 64th), but the PDF which you quote is an obviously amateur typesetting job and contains mistakes of the sort that easily occur in an unconventional example of this nature. I would suggest that not only the Telemann example, but all of the rubbish about 256th notes in later composers also ought to be removed. Alternatively, if the question of such a small note value is regarded as significant for this article, I would suggest that the Telemann example be kept, and the later ones (Messiaen, etc.) be removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed some errors in the PDF, so you're no doubt correct on that matter. I also agree with the rest of your suggestion, which is to remove the entire remainder of the paragraph starting with the word "Interestingly." Hmoulding (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been done. And thank you for noticing my little joke, which has been standing there for a very long time, waiting for at least a little chuckle.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Compound meter and other issues

Hi Wahoofive. Thanks for your input. Yes, compound time is used where I live, i.e. in the United Kingdom, and so I will eventually work on some redirections, etc. I hope to improve the "compound" explanation, as and when, so please keep an eye open. This will be done with cross-references to other entries re time.

Meanwhile, taking your point about "rewriting meters", I agree this could certainly stand removal or re-siting lower down. However I am a newcomer to this page and have not the guts to do so. Are you planning anything?

Perhaps actually this can be held in abeyance for the moment: I have a certain number of edits and clarification in mind to other entries re time. These in turn will have some redirections and further cross-refs. Plus I intend to write a short new article. I hope I can count on your support :o) and will give you a shout as I do my extra bits. FClef 8 September 2005 20:12 (GMT)

Hi Wahoofive and other contributors. Courtesy submit to peers of my proposed copy to replace current copy on compound time. I have retained the best of the previously existing copy and tried to clarify. Feed back, please! (FYI I am a working musician: piano entertainer, vocal coach and musical theatre repetiteur.)

Compound time signatures are distinguished by an upper number which is 6 or above and a multiple of three (most commonly 6, 9, or 12). The most common lower number in a compound time signature is 8, representing the quaver note value.

Unlike simple time, however, compound time uses a dotted note for the beat unit. This is the root of the name “compound” time. The beat is a compound of a note value plus a dot. Consequently, the upper and lower numbers in compound time signatures do not represent the number of beats per measure and the beat unit.

Subheading: Interpreting compound time signatures. The upper and lower numbers in compound time signatures need to be factored as follows:

To determine the number of beats per measure divide the upper number by three. For example, in 6/8, there are 2 beats per measure (because 6 divided by 3 equals 2). So the pulse for the piece is 1-2, 1-2, 1-2, etc.

To identify the “beat unit” (i.e. which type of note represents ONE beat), multiply the note value represented by the lower number by three. For example, in 6/8, the lower number (8) represents an eighth-note (or quaver). Multiplying that note value by three gives a beat unit of a dotted quarter-note. (i.e., 3 quavers).

The compound time signatures 6/8 , 9/8 and 12/8 denote two, three and four x dotted quarter-note beats per bar respectively.

FClef 9 September 2005 23:12 (GMT)

This looks great. Be bold! The only thing I'd suggest changing is To identify the “beat unit” (i.e. which type of note represents ONE beat), multiply the note value represented by the lower number by three. You used the word divide in the previous paragraph in a mathematical sense, so multiply by 3 is going to lead someone to think 8x3=24. See if you can find a clearer way to phrase it. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, there are pieces in 6/8 which have eighth-note beats, although that's less common. The concept of beat gets more slippery the more closely you look at it. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed! And thanks for encouragement. I shall type this up on my return to London on Sunday. Meanwhile, re your multiplication point, I'm energetically thinking of an alternative. by the way, I suggest slightly tightening the explanation of simple time to be consistent with compound. (not adding to it substantially.)

I will be using the term simple and compound meter as per our previous discussion on this.FClef 10 September 2005 03:31 (GMT)

Actually, whoops - cancel my last remark. I will retain the terms simple and compound time as the article and indeed the section heading are brimming with it.FClef 10 September 2005 03:36 (GMT)

Hi Wahoofive. It's been a big couple of days here, what with the Last Night of the Proms and also England regaining the Ashes in cricket (look up the Ashes in Wikipedia) for the first time in 18 yrs. I have done my edit of Compound Time.

There are some problems, as follows: 1. There were three stray paragraphs remaining unheaded at the bottom of the section on Simple and Compound Time.

• I have moved the first one into a new sub-sub-section, Notational Variations in Simple Time.
• The second paragraph really should go up at the head of the Simple and Compound Time section as it is a blanket remark. The only problem is that upper and lower numbers in time signatures are explained BELOW, in the Simple time subsection.
• The third paragraph is a problem in terms of organisation.

Have you any thoughts - or could you please take swift action to remedy these probs.

2. It occurs to me that the terms upper and lower numbers could be interpreted as greater and smaller, respectively. So people might think that in 6/8, 8 is the upper number.

• Should we rename these "top" and "bottom" numbers throughout the whole article?
• Should you write some brilliant sentence after your fraction remark at the outset of the article, for the avoidance of doubt?

3. Is a caveat needed before Simple and Compound Time referring people to read sections on beat and note value?

4. Regarding your misgivings about the term "multiplying", it was in the original. I hope that the cross-referencing and use of emphasis in the paragraph will eliminate ambiguity.

And finally, I think I have been somewhat misleading in signing myself as FClef, for I am essentially a GClef 12 September 2005 00:54 (GMT)

Hi Wahoofive. I have solved problem no. 1 by some re-jigging. Please take a look. Please feel free to take action on 2 and 3. Should we use the terms top and bottom figure? (for my point 2) Actually, I think, reading the article, it's now pretty clear.GClef 12 September 2005 14:10 (GMT)

Proposed Move of "Stress and Meter" section

I suggest we move the entire section called "Stress and Meter" all the way to the bottom, even below the historical stuff. It's related to time signatures, but is subsidiary to content about the notational device, which is the principal subject of the article. I'd be happy to hear other editors' comments on this proposal. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Good idea - please do! Your remarks in the second sentence would make an good introductory blast to that section. I feel it needs saying in the Time Signatures article. FClef 8 September 2005 22:12 (GMT)

Simple Time and Compound Time - redirects

Hi Wahoofive. As part of ongoing housekeeping, I have redirected the term Simple Time to Simple Metre, and Compound Time to Compound Metre. This will assist the legions of readers who normally use the terms Simple Time and Compound Time.

Incidentally, the articles on these topics are stubs and could do with clarification. (NOT expansion, IMHO - they are best kept short :o) ) FClef 8 September 2005 22:54 (GMT)

URGENT ATTENTION Wahoofive. The explanations now provided under Simple and Compound Time Signatures possibly render these two articles redundant - or do they?

Should the explanations under Simple and Compound Time Signatures be shortened to a bare minimum and the longer accounts put into these two stub articles?

or should the stubs be deleted and the terms Simple Time, Simple Metre/meter and the Compound equivalents REDIRECTED to Time Signatures? best wishes, with my gender-changed name now, your comrade in arms GClef 13 September 2005 14:10 (GMT)

As a person who deals with boys' choirs periodically, I can't see the GClef as a different gender from the F clef, but whatever. Not to mention that we tenors sing from the G clef.

I think it would make more sense for those terms to redirect to Metre (music), which drastically needs a rewrite as well.

Thanks for all your time working on this. In the future, if you want to address a note directly to me, put it on my user talk page rather than an article talk page. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Interpreting compound time signatures

To the person who's putting in the (so far) confused and confusing material on interpreting compound time signatures, particularly the matter of counting 6/8 as a simple meter: I challenge you on your assertion that this signature in simple meter would be counted "1 & 2 & ..." (in other words, counting in sixteenths). In simple meter, it would simply be counted with one syllable per eighth note, or just "1 2 3 4 5 6". Unless I'm really missing something here. Other opinions? ILike2BeAnonymous 19:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. The confusion arises due to the fact that the simple meter 6/8 and the compound meter 6/8 are often counted (incorrctly in the case of compound meter) as: "1 2 3 4 5 6". It will appear to the reader that the simple meter 6/8 and compound meter 6/8 are the same sound. In simple meter 6/8, the cycle of six counts will refer to the beat level, when the reader encounters a compound 6/8, there is nothing to make him aware that his point of reference has shifted from the beat level to the first level of subdivision. The counting of subdivisions (in this case 16ths) in the six beat, simple meter count keeps the point of reference the same and will help to distinguish it from the compound meter,(two beat) six subdivision count.

Well, that's one way to look at it. But isn't it simpler just to say that the normal (compound) 6/8 is counted, say, 1-2-3 2-2-3, where simple meter is just counted 1-2-3-4-5-6? This makes it clear that the compound meter is a duple division, while simple just counts the beats out. No? ILike2BeAnonymous 05:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally. It is easier and too bad it's not the norm! When I teach my piano students, I allow them to tap with a mallet and count 2/4 with a triplet and then 6/8 counted as: 123 223. It's a challenge for them to verbalize 123 223! Maybe that's why it doesn't stick as well. For new students, I have to remember to go the the back of their first year method book and over-write the explaination of compound 6/8: " 6/8 is counted, 123456. There are six beats in a measure with accents on beats 1 & 4" I guess it comes out to the same thing in the short run, but without pointing out the differences at the first level of subdivision, they don't have a clear understanding of what's really happening. PB 4-3-06

Heh; if you really want to challenge them, you ought to make them beat out 2/4 against 6/8 simultaneously. Or are kids today such idiots (or our expectations of them so abysmally low) that we shouldn't expect them to be able to do this? Used to be this kind of thing was considered a normal part of a musician's training. Oh, well. ILike2BeAnonymous 19:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

PB 4-4 Yes, I do have them do that at the end of their first year, but it is a challenge for those who've been born with minimal talent.

Getting back to the topic at hand: as they say, now we're getting somewhere. You added this to the article (I think):

When viewed from a real world perspective, a simple-meter 6/8 has no productive purpose, due to the fact that once the sound of a three-beat grouping is established, there's no need to double it up. The result of using 6/8 as two doubled-up 3/8's in a simple meter format (non-dotted beats and subdivisions in "duplets" rather than "triplets") merely adds to the morass of needless modern time signatures that result in generations of confused students and teachers alike.

Not to belabor the point, but I'm not sure this is correct. I believe there are examples of music that use 6/8 to mean groupings of 6 beats intentionally, and not groups of 3. Unfortunately, can't think of any specifically at the moment, but I'm positive I've played music (orchestral music) where the beat unit was 6. In which case, simple 6/8 can be perfectly legitimate and doesn't necessarily add to the "morass of needless modern time signatures" (which, I'll grant you, does exist). Whaddya think? ILike2BeAnonymous 22:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly the point being discussed here, the term "simple-meter 6/8" refers to a situation in which the second through sixth eighth notes receive an equal weight, as opposed to the fourth one receiving a secondary beat stress. I have only seen that in pretty specialized kinds of music, for example mixed-meter music which goes from 3/8 to 5/8 to 8/8 to 6/8 to 1/8 and so on, with a pretty relentless eighth-note pulse: Philip Glass for example. But that's pretty unusual, and I've never heard a special term used to describe it. Less-common signatures such as 4/8 and 8/8 often appear in that context as well. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

PB 4-4-06 Yes, I did add the "morass of needless modern time signatures" and I have an excellent example. I hate to rough-up Lennie (God rest his soul) but the 6/8 3/4 in America is totally pointless. It's just two measures of 3/4 with an heavy accent on the "+" of two in the first measure: |1 + 2 + 3 + | 1 + 2 + 3 + |. Furthermore, if you view the 6/8 as a compound 6/8 (which is what it seems like at first listen) it leads one to confirming that it's in 5/4. (6/8, two beats in a measure plus the three beats in the 3/4 bar). If you view the first bar of 6/8 as a simple meter 6/8, then everything works out, other than the fact that it's another modern time signature that adds to the swampy mess that students and professionals have to navigate through.

[allow me to interject here] Actually, the 6/8-3/4 combination perfectly describes what Lennie intended: as I remember (not having listened to this in some time), the whole phrase goes "Ev' ry one's free in-a me ri ca", which maps to |1 2 3 4 5 6| |1 & 2 & 3 &|—clearly a 6/8 (duple) bar followed by a 3/4 (triple) bar, which is the whole schtick of that phrase. Why don't you think this is legitimate, or why do you think this is part of a "swampy mess"? It communicates the rhythmic intentions of that phrase perfectly. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

PB 4-4 It's not that I don't like LB or his composition, but it seems to me if something can be written in 3/4 with an accent, why not just write it that way? I not so sure there's any difference from what's written above than what the sound of the 3/4 with an accent. Anyway, it sure has sparked an interesting debate.

PB 4-4-06 Concerning the beat unit of six. I saw a Schumann piano piece recently that had the time signature "CC" and the phrase markings went along with eight beat linear patterns. Now, I would think that this would have most of us saying: "Mmmm, do we really need to double-up 4/4"? Once we have a 4/4 pattern, don't we know what's happening? (Maybe even 2/4 for that matter!)Doesn't the phrasing of the music simply "float" over the top of the basic rhythmic pattern? The same goes for a simple meter 6/8: Once the grouping of three is established we know what the sound is, the phrasing or the floating of the actual linear elements do not have to be pointed out by using doubled up time signatures. Except, in the case of 6/8 or 12/8, where in contemporary radio music we hear tunes like Alicia Keys "If I ain't got you". Here the piano starts out in a second level of (16th note) 'triplet' subdivisions. (Technically a group of three 1/8th notes but I'll call them triplets for bevity.) Later the drums enter and we can hear the first level of 1/8th note 'triplet' subdivisions played by the high-hat and then the kick and snare drums defining the beat level. The kick and snare drums establishing the "4/4" pattern required for contemporary music to sell). This is a perfect example where the compound 6/8 or 12/8 is required: There are two separate levels of 'triplet' subdivisions and a beat level in groups of two beats or four beats depending if you hear it, either in 6/8 or 12/8. Because the tune is slow, 12/8 would be the preferred choice of time signature. But, I can't see anything wrong with 6/8, because 12/8 is just a doubling of 6/8. Maybe 12/8 also adds to the morass of needless modern time signatures?

It occurs to me that if you dislike Lennie (well, at least his usage of time signatures), you probably hate Beethoven. I say this after taking a look at the 9th symphony. Specifically, you ought to take a look at the 2nd movement (Molto vivace), written in 3/4. Now, there's nothing exceptional about the time signature or its usage; what is interesting, though, is what might be called the macroscopic rhythmic groupings that Beethoven uses. In fact, it's explicitly marked. For instance, at mm 177, he marks "Ritmo di tre battute". I remember a rehearsal of this piece where the conductor took some time to explain this to us players, most of who were clueless as to what this marking meant. It means that the measures are to be played in groups of 3. Keep in mind that this is a fast tempo (marked dotted half note=116), so it's basically zipping by in 1. Then later, at mm 234, the marking "Ritmo di quattro battute" appears, meaning the rhythmic unit is now four measures. Is this more "morass/swampy mess", or a clear indication of how to achieve the result the composer wanted? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well that's a matter of what your view of "morass/swampy mess" would be. In the above, by what you describe it looks as if it would be notated today as a compound 12/4 or easier to read (due to the beamed 1/8th notes) 12/8. Which one is harder to read or understand? This may be a good example of what is complicated written out simply may be easier if one approaches the swampy mess. That's a good question! In Beethoven's time, would using a compound 12/4 have been available to him as a daily practice? That I don't know. Anyone? PB 4-4-06

So far as ease of reading goes, the music is as easy to read as possible as is: it's almost all quarter notes, hardly any eighths (except after dotted quarters), so beaming isn't an issue. Here the composer found the most direct way to write out their intentions schematically.

I get the feeling that you're sort of campaigning for easier-to-understand notation on behalf of underachieving young music students. Is that off the mark? If not, take away their damn PlayStations, pagers and other crap and tell them to pay attention!==ILike2BeAnonymous 03:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that all the "crap" that the kids have to play with today does distract them from their work, but my orginal edit (which I should not have done without entering the discussion page first) was to correct the orginal writer's assumption that compound meter was the result of the beat plus the dot... or something to that effect. Beyond that, I don't think I'm campaigning for easier-to-understand notation as much as to nullify the concept that time signatures must be constructed to follow the lenghths of musical phrases. Simple patterns exist in music, and when they are available, why make it something more complicated than it is? I don't think that explaining the compound 12/8 concept with two levels of 'triplet' subdivisions and the initial beat level created by the drums found in Alicia Keys "If I Ain't Got You" is easy at all. The somewhat misleading sheet music that a student brought to me was written in 3/4 time with the instructions to play it in 'One'. What kind of a beat pattern is 'one'? Tell a drummer to play in 'one' and he'll laugh at you. There is no such thing, even though it's added to music all the time. Music has to have at least a group of two or a group of three beats to have some sort of pattern. Calling something what it isn't in order to simplify it, is certainly not the way to go.

It's interesting that the "morass/swampy mess" thing hit a real nerve ending here! Instead of chewing on tinfoil, have the orginal author take my text down, return the explaination of compound meter to, "a note plus the dot", and whatever else was lacking scholarship. Let's not think or listen to what we're doing and how we teach students, let's just parrot the cloudy ideas we've accumulated over time as some sort of gospel truth that can't be questioned or discussed. PB 4-5-06

Hey, you're not getting off the hook that easily! No, this is good stuff. I have no solid conclusions yet, but I think it's definitely worth exploring, even if it takes us outside the bounds of "accepted scholarship". Ooooooh, what a frightening thought!

Just one specific question: let's say you were given the task of notating that little snatch of "America" that was discussed above. How would you do it? and why? (I don't know the Alicia Keys piece—who the hell is she, anyhow?—so can't really use that.) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

America is a simple triple with a heavy dynamic accent on the "+" of beat two: |1+2+3+|1+2+3+|. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.69.201 (talk • contribs) 21 February 2008

But that's only the first part of it; what about the second part, which is 3-subdivided-2 accented on the first beat (in your notation, something like |1+2+|1+2+|1+2+|)? (By the way, do you think you could sign your comments in the normal way here?) +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"America" is NOT simple triple, since in addition to the fourth quaver being accented, the third and fifth are unaccented. 91.105.41.141 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be a spoilsport, but the purpose of this article is to explain how time signatures are used, not how you think they should be used. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Font

Question at Talk:Musical_notation#Time_signature_font.3F: What is the standard font for time signatures? Hyacinth 01:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Unconventional

Can we include the song "Eleven." It's by Primus, and it's in 11/7. Off the album "sailing the seas of cheese."

There's no such thing as 11/7. But anyway, examples go at List of works in irregular time signatures. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Complex signatures redux

In a recent edit the introduction to this section became this:

Signatures which are composed of the addition of unequal subdivisions of the bar are called complex time signatures, asymmetric meters or irregular time signatures.

I have to admit I don't really understand what this sentence is saying. I've tried parsing it several ways, but it's still unclear, so I can only imagine that others will have the same reaction. I understand the problems with the previous incarnation which stated that a complex time signature has a numerator of 5, 7 or some other odd number. Unfortunately, this is little improvement. Can the editor please explain what was meant—or better yet, reword this to make it clearer? +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's have a quick think... It seems clear enough to me, and I can't immediately think of a more elegant way of saying it; after all, the term is intended to catch/omit quite sizeable categories of subconcepts, so some clunkiness of phrasing in its definition is to be expected. I agree that a better phrasing is certainly possible though; to explain the meaning of the above, "composed of the addition of unequal subdivisions of the bar" states that the bar breaks down into smaller stress units (e.g. one possible interpretation of 5/8 is 3/8 + 2/8) which are not equal in length. However, this does exclude a couple of cases that come to mind - i) When there is only one stress in a bar of many beats (e.g. the 11/4 bar of bass drum crotchets in the Rite of Spring), and ii) When there are two or more stresses of equal length, but these divide differently. A signature of 6/8 + 3/4 would fall into this category - as in Bernstein's 'America', but with two bars folded into one. I'll return to this when I have time. Dave Taylor 10:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded it to be more catch-all. Do people like this version? Dave Taylor 08:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dunno about "catch-all", but it's much better, and understandable to the layperson. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Mixed meters in Progressive rock

I've add into the article, in the section mixed meters, the following text: "In progressive rock, mixed meters are often used, with complex combinations. The most known bands that use this combinations are: Dream Theater, Symphony X and Planet X." Actually, I even wanted to write more about the subject, but I thought it's better to put really simple. With this, I've started a little discussion with user Wahoofive, who revert the page because "it doesn't belong there". It followed:

Why doesnt belong there?? Khullah 02:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The article Time signature is about a music notation device, not an invitation to list your favorite bands. Regardless of whether the example bands use mixed meters, they don't necessarily use time signatures to do it. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Wahoofive"

I ask the community to respond and give opinions in the case. I really think it does belong there, and not ridicously just to "list my favorite bands". In fact, the List of musical works in unusual time signatures cites Dream Theater several times, with a lot of different time signatures in each song. Just browse to "Dance of eternity" and see. Of course this page only shows the time signatures, and doens't prove within itself that the songs have mixed meters, but then I can only ask you to listen to it. I'm in no condition to post unauthorized score by copyright protections.

Who knows prog music and understand musical theory knows that that it is the basic principle of these band to use mixed meters. Many times they use really time signatures, mantaining for a hole section, and even in the middle of those sometimes they change only one bar with an odd time and complex signature, making it "lose the flow" of the signature (although not always, obviously).

I'm not to extend myself, so let me hear what you have to say about it and let's discuss it. :>)

Khullah 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I can only reiterate that this article is not about mixed meters, but about time signatures. It's irrelevant whether we think it COULD be written with time signatures after listening to it. However, if you have printed music for these examples, I withdraw my objection. You could scan a little piece of the music and upload it without running afoul of copyright law. Don't even get me started on List of musical works in unusual time signatures, the biggest invitation to original research on Wikipedia. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't scan, but i'll give you bar after bar of "Dance of eternity", after the song actually starts (0:31): {4/4, 7/8, 3/4, 3/4, 4/4, 7/8, 3/4, 3/4}, {4/4, 7/8, 6/8, 7/8, and again}, {13/16, 15/16, 17/16, 14/16}, {4/4, 7/8, 3/4, 3/4, 4/4, 7/8, 4/4}, {5/4, 17/16, 15/16, 13/16, 4/4, 6/8, 6/8}, {5/4, 2/4, more 2 times, 5/4, 5/8}, {11/4 3 times, 9/4, 2/4}, {long part of constant 4/4}, {7/16, 7/16, 7/16, 4/4, 5/16, 5/16, 7/16, 5/16, 7/16, 5/16, 5/16, 7/16, 10/16, 10/16}, {4/4, 7/8, 3/4, 3/4}, {4/4, 7/8}, {9/8, 9/8, 6/8, 9/8, 6/8, 15/8, 9/8, 9/8, 6/8, 9/8, 6/8, 15/8}, {short part with repeated time signatures}, {3/4, 4/4, 3/4, 4/4}, {12/16, 10/16, 12/16, 14/16, 5/16, 5/16, 6/16}, {12/16, 16/16, 12/16, 16/16}, {12/16, 10/16, 12/16, 14/16}, {and ending parts with some combination of 5/16, 6/16, 7/16, and then with 6/8, 7/8}, {final bars = 5/16 and 3/8}.

So that's the song. Sorry, but to me, that's mixed meters. Oh, by the way, before I forget myself - if you want evidence, I've taken this from Dream Theater Full Score Anthology, by 2002 Warner Bros. Publications. Khullah 03:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This is skirting around the edge of emotive ground - often well-intentioned but short-sighted and underinformed people have added lists of songs by rock or pop groups to the very brief list of examples in this article in the apparent belief that such examples are somehow noteworthy (or for the less worthy motive of promoting their favourite band). After the umpteenth occurence, this, of course, irritates those who spend time trying to keep this a meaningful article. At first sight, your addition appears to be more of the same. But is it?

It comes down to the question of whether the use of mixed meters in Prog Rock is 'noteworthy'. It is an interesting aside for the article, but I don't think that the statement that you wish to insert assists in conveying the context of mixed meters, which are very widespread in 20th century music of many kinds. Although the focus is broader than "my favourite band uses these", it still comes down to "my favourite rock subgenre uses these", giving the impression that that genre is somehow special because of this, which it isn't. A feature of the popular music scene of the last 50 years is that it has endlessly classified itself into a vast number of subgenres, many of which are differentiated by fewer stylistic changes than occur within the work of a single "name" composer of the same period.

In my opinion, your statement (and subsequent defence of it) betrays the above attitude. There's no need to make the article more "relevant" - it's all Music; music listeners of a hundred years hence won't be fussing over the differences between rock bands who used mixed meters and those who didn't. Dave Taylor 15:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you dave, but it seems to me more and more that this article is prejudiced against genres that are not classic ones. Or even "serious" works. Read it, it just tells about that, like no other style is worthy of mention. Like you said, its all music, so why do we neglect some of its contemporary pieces? Just beacuse it's alternative, underground, least known music? I think its important to show the "historical" part of it as well as the contemporary age of it. Classical are not better, classical does not knows more of music than other genres, its not more complex. Early songs can be as equally "tricky" or smart and complex, or even brilliant, no matter if it is in its melody, harmony ou rhytms. I don't know, it just seems to me that's what's happening here. No one is trying to actually hear the songs and understand it, to then take a conclusion. It's just the way I think and fell right now. Khullah 03:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a little confused about some of your terminology here. What do you mean by "early"? Do you mean "early in the Western popular music tradition"? If you do, that is quite confusing, as early as a descriptor on its own typically refers to music several hundreds of years older.

There are 7 references to music from the Western popular music tradition in the article at the moment (including the very first cited piece), plus a reference link at the bottom of the page to "Math rock". This is already more than enough to make the points that the examples are being used for, and as the WPMT (if I may coin an acronym) is only a small proportion of overall music, to insert more would be indulgent, placing undue emphasis on it. Such emphasis would be due if truly innovative things were being done to time signatures inside it - but they are not; all the rhythmic developments that you are championing were originally made in the first half of the 20th century or earlier (in the wider Western tradition, anyway. Different traditions may have got there earlier - but not the WPMT, as it hadn't yet come into being).

You need to be very careful with the word "classical". Apart from the fact that it has a precise technical meaning in this context ("Western art music of the period between the deaths of J.S. Bach and Beethoven"), which you do not appear to be using, lumping the entire historical sweep of 1000 years of Western music into one category, while scrupulously differentiating between very much smaller subdivisions of a subgenre of the same category (it would divide something like Western music -> popular/folk music -> late 20th century/early 21st century -> rock -> prog rock -> ...) betrays a lack of perspective. As I said, it's all music - but using "classical" like this makes me think that you're not familiar with the full scope of the Western tradition, and so consequently tend to place too much emphasis on the parts you are familiar with. Dave Taylor 10:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why no one seems to realize this, but this article is about an aspect of music notation. Historical and "art" music are principally experienced through notation, whereas contemporary music, however worthy, is usually only experienced via recordings (or live performances). That's why historical music appears here more often. Maybe you should bug the editors at Metre (music), but even there you'll get redirected to List of musical works in unusual time signatures. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Sorry dave, I didn't express myself well. My native language is not english. By early I've meant contemporary or even "from around 20th century to today".

2) I know that there is indeed 7 references to WPMT, but they are/were popular (well known). There's no reference to any 'rockish' bands that are less popular and still deserves the credit and mention.

3) Changing time signature it's not original, there's no news there. But did you seen in the first half of 20th century a variety of time signatures like the example I gave? Or the maximum was the 5/4, 6/4 in the example image?? This more complex approach seems to be original, in the rock genre at minimun. In rock the down beats are well heard usually, and the constant braking of the flow of it's original. Ok, Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" it's a good example. I don't know the song, how does it work in the rest of the piece, with time signatures? It's a good example. But it's not the same "point of view" (paradigma perhaps?), you know?

4) Again, I express myself in wrong ways. Classical music derives from my portuguese "música clássica", wich means Bach and Beethoven like, but in a broader way, meaning musics made by a composer, with orchestras or its instruments, and consequently not with contemporary instruments like drums, guitars and synths. But it is a broad definition, not accurate by any mean. I think it would be more similar in english to the classic music era.

5) Wahoofive: yet it doesn't seems, I do get the article is about that. I don't think you understand what I want here, though. You assumed right in the beggining that I do not have music notation knowlegde (or advanced one) and that I just wanted to cite my favorite bands. I don't pretend to extend myself in the article with my add. I just think it would be nice to add in it a contemporary view, as well. Of course musics from the classical era shows more of this aspect. However, even though contemporary music tend to not use this tool anymore, with more complex musics and for study it is still useda lot. There are rare perfect examples (scored with necessary reference) to include in the article, but it seems to me that contemporary scores that shows mixed meters and unusual time signatures could and should be cited. The article becomes more complete.

Khullah 03:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Throughout 'The Rite of Spring' (a 45 minute piece) there are numerous passages where the time signature changes nearly every bar, sometimes between relatively 'tame' signatures, or sometimes (as in the final 'Sacrifice' movement) between more unusual combinations - 2/16, 3/16, 2/8, 5/16 and 3/8 bars make up the bulk of the movement, although there is a section in crotchets in the middle (I forget whether it is notated in 4/4 or 5/4) where different instrumental groups play patterns of differing lengths - in effect, several time signatures are running at once. This was written in 1913, some 55-60 years before the Prog Rock movement took off, and in the intervening time, many people wrote with time signatures that built on this in terms of complexity, using, for example, highly variable bar lengths without any signatures, combined signatures (such as 4/2+3/4. Interestingly, this particular bar length arises in an early 17th century virginals piece by John Bull, although as I recall, the used signature is not revolutionary), signatures with extreme denominators (32, 64, etc.) and/or numerators, and, from the 60s onwards, so-called "irrational" signatures, where the denominator is not a whole power of 2 (e.g. 2/6).

In summary, I'm sorry to knock your theory, but the use of streams of irregular time signatures is a device that has a history of nearly 100 years in Western music. Dave Taylor 11:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think prog rock needs to be mentioned here; its use of odd time signatures is one of the trademarks of the genre. There is a song by Dream Theater called The Dance of Eternity that's a good example. Rush's Jacob's Ladder is another decent one. I'm not a musician, so I can't list specifics, but it does need a mention. — Deckiller 14:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My two cents: While progressive rock is not the only form of commercial popular music to make use of "unusual" metres, it's by far the style most closely associated with this device, so far that it is often defined as "rock music with unusual metres", and often, rock music with unusual metres is considered progressive rock, even though the correlation between the two is far from perfect. (Similarly, Bulgarian folk music is not the only tradition of traditional folk music to make use of odd metres, but it is by far the tradition most well known for it, and most closely associated with it.) There's actually a good reason why progressive rock is so notable in this respect: it was the first style of popular music (excluding jazz) to make extensive use of this device, among others loaned from - especially modernist - (art) music and jazz, and actually (in part) define itself by doing so.

Since progressive rock is so well known as making use of "unusual" time signatures, it's a good way to illustrate the concept to the reader, who may very well be more familiar with 20th century commercial popular music than 20th century classical music or folk music, like it or not. However, I agree that the focus of the article should not be on that and more on art music, jazz, and folk music, as the progressive rock movement is comparatively recent, having started ca. 1970. But within popular music, progressive rock is indeed important, being controversial for breaking up rigid stylistic rules and boundaries and making popular music more like a classical musician would consider it appropriate.

To a classical musician, the idea that a piece must be no longer than five minutes, never change metre or even tempo nor change volume or key except in a very limited manner in very specific situations, must follow a very specific harmony based on simple major chords (triads) or sometimes pentatonics, must contain vocals and follow a rigid verse-chorus structure, an insistent back-beat, etc., and whenever a piece deviates from this template (the "hit song" template - to be fair, a slight but memorable [for the listener accustomed to this template] deviation is generally considered beneficial for a pop song to make it stand out and, well, memorable), it is called "original", "adventurous", "progressive", "avant-garde", "experimental" or "weird", must appear strange, no doubt.

However, I agree that the excessive list of examples in the complex time signatures section must go. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "Take Five" example

Someone keeps taking out the Brubeck music example in the "Complex time signatures" section. I contend that this should stay, as it's quite well known and illustrates the concept very well. So far as being "legal" goes, I'm almost certain that since this is only two measures of a larger work, it falls well within fair-use guidelines. Does anyone know for sure whether this is true? I'd like to put this to rest, since the editor who wants it removed (they've never explained themselves on this) is fairly insistent. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I could notice myself this ambition to have the Take Five shaved away from Wikipedia and the fellow editor acts like some hitman - sorry! I agree that it is one of the finest examples one can spell. And this editor should remember some unwritten laws in the Internet, which allow as following:

• uploading audio samples of max. 30 seconds in lo-Q or med-Q from any recording ever made, either for commercial reasons or only so as to illustrate. (Some sites even offer samples not of 30, but of 45 or 60 seconds in length instead. But that's really for commerce, which is a matter different from WikiMedia.)
• fully uploading the first page from the official complete score of any music, no matter if the author is still living or dead but still under copyrights' protection. This was proposed by score selling-oriented sites, which even have the nerve to sell unofficial scores as official ones, so a couple of measures, not even regarding the full orchestra, is even more tolerable.

In fact, why all these? Why was the audio sample withdrawn? Which are the editor's actual arguments? (Impy4ever 21:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

I should have made it more clear that I was talking about the written music sample, not the audio sample. I actually don't care about the audio sample; if it can be included in the article, fine. But it should be pointed out that the written music and the example are not joined at the hip. I put the written music back in, but took out the reference to the audio sample in its caption. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use is actually discouraged in Wikipedia policy. For one thing, it's primarily a US concept, whereas WP has worldwide distribution. Some countries have no fair use exceptions. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How is it that fair use is discouraged in this situation? Going to the link you provided I find that fair use is a condition which allows the use of non-free media: "Non-free media may be used in articles only if: 1. Its usage would be considered fair use in United States copyright law". Hyacinth (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If the extract of "Take Five" really needs to be removed, then don't exactly the same arguments apply to the extract of "Rite of Spring", which is still present? Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You may look at that image's page and see that unlike "Take Five" it is public domain. Hyacinth (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

These various arguments seem to overlook the fact that "Take Five" is, indeed, so well-known that it should not be necessary to include, here, any kind of sample of it, written or aural. It should be sufficient to cite it as a well-known example; the reader can easily find it and listen to it. rowley (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Most Frequent Time Signatures wording

i'm not sure if this falls under encyclopedic language.

"12/8 (quadruple) : classical music; also common in slower blues, doo-wop and stripper music; also used more recently in rock music."

Additional citations

Why and where does this article need additional citations? Hyacinth (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Template removed. Hyacinth (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Compound triple

"Compound triple time, used in triple ("slip") jigs, otherwise occurring rarely". I'm not sure how rare it is. What is true is that it's perceived as rare, and because of this, many songs that would correctly be written in compound triple are written in simple triple instead. Two obvious examples are "Clementine" (9/8) and "Morning has broken" (9/4). 91.105.41.141 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Font name

Does the font of the numbers in a time signature have a name (e.g. we know about Times New Roman.) Georgia guy (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sibelius indicates that it uses a special "music font", Opus Text or Helsinki, for engraved scores, or others for scores which have a handwritten look. Hyacinth (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Additions

I added some further explanations on actual divisions and rewriting time signatures in the process I had to reorganize a bit. I hope you find this reasonable! WikiPBia (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Aksak

Yesterday I queried the claim that the Turkish term "aksak", which Brăiloiu borrowed in 1951, is sometimes spelt "aksaac" instead. I have no reason to doubt this claim, but the reason offered (which was the purpose of my query), is that "there isn't an exact transliteration from medieval Turkish into the Latin alphabet". In the meantime, I see that User:Hyacinth has added to my comment the note "'c' being the English 'j' sound in modern Turkish". Since I am rapidly becoming even more confused, I think a discussion belongs here on the talk page, rather than in hidden editorial comments. I was initially puzzled because (modern) Turkish in fact has a Latin-alphabet orthographic system, and the standard "transliteration" of the word is in fact "aksak". I do not read or speak Turkish, but I do not understand

1. why replacing the second, single a with a double one, and the final k with a c addresses the problem of the medieval Turkish word: was it pronounced differently than in modern Turkish? If so, in what language-context does this transliteration address this problem (Brăiloiu was a Romanian writing in French, but was it he or someone else who used this variant spelling)?
2. Assuming there is a difference between the medieval and modern Turkish terms, what evidence there is that Brăiloiu borrowed the medieval rather than the modern Turkish word (in his article, he merely says "il s'agit ici d'aksak (dont « boiteux » est la traduction). J'avais moi-même proposé naguère de substituer au terme usuel « bulgare » — a mon sens, inadequat — celui, plus général, d' « aksak », emprunté à la théorie turque". (Although he does not say "la théorie turque médiévale", neither does he specifically say "la théorie turque moderne".)

Whatever the answers may be, it still seems to me that the non-expert Wikipedia reader deserves a better explanation of this business than is currently offered.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Same piece, different meter

Would making some mention of different time signatures occurring simultaneously within the same piece of music be useful? (Example is the final movement of Holst's Suite in F, where part of the ensemble plays the main theme in 6/8 time while another part of the ensemble plays Greensleeves in 3/4, and the conductor must therefore conduct only the downbeat of each measure.) Powers ^T 00:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

How to read the notation?

How do you say ³
₄? "Three-quarter meter"? "Three-over-four meter"? "Three-four meter"? Could you add the answer at the start of the article in parentheses when the notation is first used? Thanks! --87.198.225.98 (talk) 11:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I'll add it in. --Tim Sabin (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2