Entertainment desk
< January 19	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 20

Sextuple time must not be confused with compound duple time

This is a message at the Sextuple time article. I always though they were the same thing at different tempos. Anything contrary to this piece of information that shows that they're different in any way besides tempo?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a difference in things like beat stress (secondary stresses and the like). You could count 6 beats per measure as 1 2 3 4 5 6 or as 1 2 3 4 5 6 or as 1 2 3 4 5 6; while each may be written as a 6/8 time signature, whether one is considering the piece as sextuple time or as compound time would of course depend on the "feel" and "swing" of the piece. --Jayron 32 16:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6/8 is usually a duple meter. At the speed of an average Mozart 6/8 rondo finale, you cannot really feel it as 6 beats, but rather as 1-and-a-2-and-a. The sextuple interpretation will require some explanation, like a marking "in six", or if there is a constant quarter-note pulse. They are not the same thing: one has two beats (and would be more clearly written as 2/[dotted quarter]) while the other has six.

Furthermore, I would expect that 1 2 3 4 5 6 would be more likely to be written as 3/2 instead of 6/4, even if there is a constant quarter-note pulse, so that it will not be misinterpreted as the more common 1 2 3 4 5 6. An example is in Musorgsky's Trepak from Songs and Dances of Death, shifting between 4/4 and 3/2 (nevertheless with six obvious beats to the bar). Double sharp (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of cartoons that came out in the 80s-90s (from 1985-2000) in Cartoon Network

Can someone help me with the entitled information please? Regards. -- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean only cartoons that played on Cartoon Network, rather than all possible cartoons for that time period? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're in here, but they're mixed with the post-Y2K garbage. Not much going on before 1992. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Samurai_Jack. Either you forgot when it came out or your taste is less good than I thought ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it. I'll watch since you mentioned. I told my guy to download everything from youtube now. Its legal at least... -- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it either. I lived in a whole other world then. I only "borrowed" DirectTV from about 2006-09. Sounds good, though, I'll take a look. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, (InedibleHulk—Russell.mo) Maybe it's not you're cup of tea, but Samurai Jack has great style and action, as well as a certain dreamy/trippy sensibility. You might also like Star_Wars:_Clone_Wars_(2003_TV_series), which has some of the same aesthetic and creative people involved. The whole run of shorts is on youtube here [1], and works pretty well as a ~2 hour movie. Very little dialogue (so perhaps easier for Russell.mo), and much better than the Star Wars I-III movies :) Let me know if you like them! SemanticMantis (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate Star Wars. Special Effect/Imagination of graphical outlook is pathetic. -- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that cartoon isn't for you then :) But since it's animated it doesn't have the same special effects problems that the movies do. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll watch it, because you stated.

-- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also pass on anything Star Wars. That's not to say it's not the best franchise in the world, objectively speaking. Just not for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A good chunk of those were billed as Cartoon_Cartoons, and that article has a nice wikified list. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can call it as the cartoons that played in that time period, because some things dates are not matching in what Hulky stated, but most of the info that I require to know, are there... -- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InedibleHulk: Thanks btw

-- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]