Talk:Meter (music)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meter (music) is within the scope of WikiProject Music, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to music. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Time
Time Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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 ✉ 22:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what does 3/4 means?

I think somewhere should be mentioned that a piece in 3/4 time stands for three 'beats' per bar made up of quarter notes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.166.51 (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3/2, 6/4, 6/8

I've a bit of a problem with this:

In the late 19th Century and early 20th Century 3/2, 6/4 and 12/8 become increasingly common - for example in the 2nd Symphony of Jean Sibelius and the First Symphony of Edward Elgar. The reason for this was to change the length of the phrases that would naturally be built from measures.

Firstly, I'm not convinced that those time signatures really became so much more common in the late 19th century - there are certainly no shortage of examples of them in earlier music: just to take an example from something I can see the score of from where I'm sitting, the Loure from Bach's third violin partita is in 6/4 and the gigue of the second is in 12/8 (so is the Siciliano from the first sonata). Secondly, I don't believe the stated reason for using these time signature - the reason to use any time signature is to give the piece a certain pattern of stressed and unstressed beats. I don't see how this affects phrase length - whether you write in 6/4 or 6/8, it's still natural to write four (or eight, or 16) bar phrases, surely. Therefore, I think this bit should be taken out the article. Objections? --Camembert 10 Jan 2004

I agree, with one addition and one unrelated question: I just don't think 3/2 and 12/8 etc are AT ALL more common. My question is: Was the Loure from Bach's third violin partita written in 6/4, or is it simply notated that way in contemporary editions? (this question isn't at all pertinent to the removal of the above paragraph).Hyacinth 01:16, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Well, the edition I've got here (publuished by Peters, edited by Carl Flesch) is a sort of double-edition, with one staff for the edited version (with additional bowings, accents, etc) and one urtext staff - both are notated in 6/4, so I guess that's how Bach wrote it. --Camembert

Yes, objections. A four bar phrase of 3/4 is 4*3=12 beats. A 4 bar phrase of 6/4 is 6*4=24 beats.

To be pedantically accurate, the baroque had more common use of a variety of meters which became less common in the period immediately after Haydn and Mozart, and then came back again.

Empirically counting up the examples in the symphonic rep shows that these longer measures (3/2 etc) become more common starting in the 1890's. There aren't any examples in Brahms for example in his string chamber music, and I can't recall any in his symphonies or concerti off of hand - though I could be wrong, I'm not a big student of Brahms. Whereas Mahler's 3rd first movement has a 3/2 section, Strauss Don Q variation 8 is in 8/4, Sibelius' Swan of Tuonela is in 9/4, in addition to the examples sited. There are numerous others.

The precise way of putting would be to say that starting in the late 18th century 4/4, 3/4, 2/2 and 6/8 took over the world and only later did other signatures make a comeback. Stirling Newberry

Remember that we're talking about 3/2, 6/4 and 12/8 here. I'm not disputing that signatures like 8/4 and 9/4 are rare in the 19th century (though maybe it's worth remembering Beethoven's last piano sonata, which has 9/16, 6/16 and 12/32). To give just a few examples: Schumann, Carnaval, "Chopin": 6/4. Liszt, Piano Sonata: 3/2 in several parts; A Faust Symphony: the odd bar of 6/4 with the end in 4/2. Brahms, Romanze, Opus 118, No 5: 6/4; Intermezzo Opus 118, No 6: 3/8; Piano Concerto No 2, third movement: 6/4. I think it is at best unclear that these time signatures were less common in the 19th century than they were previously or later.
As for the length of phrases, consider this: An eight bar phrase of 3/2 has 24 beats in it. An eight bar phrase of 3/4 has 24 beats in it. If both phrases are played at beat=120, both will last the same period of time. Similarly, if you rewrite eight bars of 3/4 as four bars of 6/4, it lasts the same length of time, and if from there you put it into 6/8, that also makes no difference. And it is quite possible to write one bar phrases in 12/8 and eight bar phrases in 2/4 and have the latter feel longer in every respect. You say that 3/2 gives you a "longer measure", but it doesn't at all - just as in 3/4 it gives you a measure with three beats in it, it's just that the beats are minims rather than crotchets. The relationship between time signature and phrase length is extremely tenuous.
I am therefore removing the second part of the passage I quoted above from the article and rewriting the first part. I wonder if much of it doesn't properly belong at time signature rather than here, though, as there's no discernable difference between 3/2 and 3/4 when you listen to them, there's only a notational difference (that's a relatively small quibble, though). --Camembert 11 Jan 2004
Agreed. However, I think there is a (weak) convention to use n/2, etc. for fast music (e.g. Vivace, Presto), and n/8 for slower music (e.g. Adagio). I am not so sure of this that I want to edit the article, though. Han-Kwang (talk) 16:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The following tables may be a bit much for the article, but should help someone:

Duple: Triple:
Simple: beats divided in two, two beats per measure beats divided in three, two beats per measure
Compound: beats divided in two, three beats per measure beats divided in three, three beats per measure
Beats divided in two: Beats divided in three:
Two beats per measure: simple duple simple triple
Three beats per measure: compound duple compound triple

Hyacinth 23:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


I guess there's a mistake in the first table-- shouldn't simple triple have three beats, subdivided by two, whereas compound duple has two beats, divided by three?

[edit] Spelling

Isn't "meter" the common spelling of this term?

It is in the United States. "Metre" is the correct British spelling. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. —Caesura(t) 02:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Metre" is also the term used in Australia. Watto the jazzman 06:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This article was originally written using the UK spelling (metre). In Jan 2007 is was arbitrarily changed over to the US spelling, apparently for no reason. This violates the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, which states that the article should retain its original spelling. Unless someone can provide some evidence that the US spelling has some special status, I propose that we revert to the article's original form. 213.152.38.2 11:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

For consistency, wouldn't this require also changing the allied Meter (poetry), Hymn meter (a subsection link to Hymn), Compound meter, etc. to "Metre (poetry)", "Hymn metre", "Compound metre", etc.? There are also a number of articles such as 10 meters, 6 meters, 2 meters, etc., about amateur-radio frequency bands, the spellings of which are in conflict with the article about the measure of length (to which they directly refer), which is Metre (redirect from "Meter"). Similar articles exist for common racing distances, such as 5000 meters, and there is at least one subsection link to 20-meter circle. For complete consistency of all of these articles, should not a single spelling prevail?
The history (since you bring this up as an issue of precedent and Wikipedia style policy) is more complicated than you make it out to be. The present article, as you state, originally used the UK spelling, when it was split off from Metre on 11 September 2002. However, Meter (poetry) (obviously a closely allied topic) had the American spelling from the time of its creation almost a year earlier, on 16 September 2001. This, incidentally, was more than a month before the article Metre was created, on 31 October 2001, and doubtless is the reason the present article's spelling was changed. Strictly speaking, therefore, if we are to apply Wikipedia policy to the global spelling question, it would appear the American spelling got there first.--Jerome Kohl 18:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I take the policy to apply on an article by article basis, rather than globally. So, no I don't think that other articles' spellings are relevant. This article was re-spelled for purely parochial reasons. That a) offends me slightly, and b) is manifestly against the site's policy, so I think we should change it back. If there's a good reason why the spelling "meter" is better than "metre", then fine. Until someone comes up with one, I think a revert is in order. AlexTingle 22:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested to learn of the evidence you have that parochialism was the sole reason for changing the spelling of "metre" to "meter". (I have only suggested a possible logic for the change that was made--I had nothing at all to do with the change, and so cannot know what the reasoning might have been.) However, that said, I notice that the linked subsidiary articles include "Simple metre", "Triple metre", "Duple" (only once internally using the spelling "meter"), and "Compound meter (music)" with a disambiguation page for "Compound meter". (Parenthetically, I notice that this "Compound meter (music)" article internally shows signs of having originally preferred UK forms such as quaver and crotchet, and until March 2006 consistently used "metre" internally, which is not surprising given that it was spun off from the main "Metre (music)" article in 2003. The note-value names have in some cases been awkwardly substituted with the Americanly incorrect "1/8 note" instead of "eighth note".) As such, it would be simpler to achieve consistency within this group of most-closely related items by reverting to the spelling "metre" for the main article, for which reason I endorse the proposal to revert.--Jerome Kohl 16:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 24/16 and C combination as a pseudo-polymeter?

Hi all,

Here is a question on terminology. One may find a simultaneous appearance of, say, 24/16 time and common (C) time in very "classical" music, e.g. in J.S.Bach's and other baroque composers' organ chorales. That is - the chorale melody in the bass (pedal) is notated in common time (C) while the upper voices (manuals) are notated in 24/16. In fact, of course it is not a polymeter in a very strict sence of the word, this is a kind of convenient notation (traced back, actually, to Middle Ages mensural divisions) assuming that each bar of 24/16 corresponds to four beats of C by four groups of 6 sixteenths (24 = 4*6). Using more "modern" notation, one could notate the time signature C in all voices and use four sextuplets instead of 24/16 (that may be inconvenient if the rythms of upper voices are more or less reach), or write 24/16 in all voices, notating the chorale melody by dotted quarters instead of normal. I hope I was clear :).

The question is - may this combination be called, nevertheless, "polymetrical" (or, "graphically polymetrical", "pseudo-polimetrical", "formally polymetrical"), since formally it contains a simultaneous use of differently notated metres (in sence of "time signatures"). If not, is it possible to invent a term for such a situation? Anyway, I guess this such a situation is treated as a "polymetre" from viewpoint of computer score-editors, like Sibelius :).

Note my recent addition to the article: "Perceptually there appears to be little or no basis for polymeter." Also, please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 06:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Measure

  • "A measure has two purposes in Western traditions of music: firstly to block out a series of beats, and secondly to form the building block of larger sections of music, such as a phrase. Time signatures imply strongly accented beats, and others that are less accented; changing time signature changes the pattern of emphasizing notes, whether by playing certain notes more loudly, or by sustaining them as in swing or rubato. A measure is similar to a metrical foot in poetry."

I removed the above paragraph from the introduction because it doesn't mention metre. Hyacinth 07:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compound

Anyway, there are several definitions of the term "compound". The one used in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is very important, but not well known. According to this theoruy (and practice), a compound measure is composed of two simple measures, i.e. two 2/4 become one 4/4, or two 3/8 become one 6/8. Thus, one compound measure contains the musical material of two simple measures, and two downbeats comparable in strength. A four-mm. phrase will appear in the score as a two-mm. phrase, and cadences will occur in the second half of m. 2. (Instead of at the beginning of m. 4.) Theories of phrase rhythm (e.g. Koch, Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition or Riepel, Anfangsgründe der Tonsetzkunst) therefore recommend counting every notated measure as two mm. when comparing phrase-lengths. In compound-meter pieces, Cadences will normally occur in mid-measure, but phrases with an odd number of measures as well as elisions can cause cadences to fall on the first downbeat (whereas phrases will begin in mid-measure). It also frequently happens that a recapitulation, compared with the exposition, appears displaced by half a measure. In those cases, there is no reason to believe that the recap should be accented differently.
The phenomenon described in the main article was known as "mixed meter". The mixed 6/8 (a 2/4 with triple subdivision) is not to be confused with the compound 6/8 (3/8 + 3/8), and the compound 4/4 (2/4 + 2/4) is different from 2/4 and the modern notion of 4/4 (with hierarchical accentuation). The notational practice of compound meter dates back to the invention of the barline in the sixteenth century, and slowly came out of use in the nineteenth century.
System of meters according to Koch:

Simple duple (two beats, duple subdivision)...........2/4, 2/2

Simple duple mixed (two beats, triple subdiv.)........6/8(a), 6/4

Simple triple (three beats, duple subdivision)........3/8, 3/4, 3/2

Simple triple mixed (three beats, triple subdivision).9/8

Compound duple (two 2/4, 2/2 between barlines)........4/4, 4/2

Compound duple mixed (two 6/8)........................12/8

compound triple (two 3/8).............................6/8(b)

compound triple mixed (two 9/8, not in use)...........18/8

(Unfortunately, a table of this would have to be three-dimensional)

Example of a compound 4/4: Haydn, Piana Sonata No. 62 in E flat, Hob. XVI:52

Example of a compound 6/8: Mozart, Piano Sonata in A, K. 331

The definition of "compound" given in the main article is IMHO a corrupt use, although quite pervasive. I have not yet had time to trackdown the history of calling mixed compound.

[edit] Relation barline-timesignature-metre

As opposed to the quantitative aspects formed by rhythm (long-short), metre focusses on speechlike qualitative aspects (stressed-unstressed), very often corresponding with the actually inaudible 'bar-lines' (see Hugo Riemann). Metre is what becomes audible through stressing and can use as a guidance (like day-night), very often regular but not necessarily, in the perception of time and therefore organize rhythmical perception. The coinciding of metrical accentuation with barlines and timesignature increased until the classical period (e.g. in Bachs h-moll messe in the opening fugue, half of the music reoccurs shifted by half a bar provoking no auditive changes whatsoever). (Filip C.L.R.)

[edit] adding "Examples of various metre sound samples" section

This section was added as subsection 1.3 for people to be able to listen to various metre sounds. Logictheo 12:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] decimal metres in Church hymnals?

I know that in my "the Celebration Hymnal" that I have, and most other hymnals, at the end of each hymn, there's a decimal metre. For example, "Away in a Manger" has "11.11.11.11." metre, and All the Way My Savior Leads Me" has "8.7.8.7.D.". Does anybody know any information about this way of displaying metre? thanks! --Ampersand2006 ( & ) 15:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the number of syllables per line, and the numerical ones are not the only ones - you'll also see CM (common metre) and DCM (double common metre); also hybrids like "8 7 8 7 and refrain". By comparing hymns using the metrical index you can find alternate tunes which work for the same words. Guy 15:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
See new disambiguation link -- TimNelson 02:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polymetres in Kashmir

The Polymetre section says that in the song Kashmir, the drums are in 4/4 while the melodic instruments are in 3/4. Is this description counting each closed high-hat hit as an eighth note? If so, why is it in 4/4? The drums basically repeat every 2 quarter notes and they match up (phrase wise) with the other instruments every 6. Granted it has a "4/4 feel", but wouldn't 6/4 or 2/4 make more sense? Also, at this tempo wouldn't the melodic part be in 3/8 or 6/8?

On the other hand, if every closed high-hat hit is to be a quarter note (in which case the time signatures in the article do make sense), doesn't that seem like an abnormally fast way of notating what feels like a mid-tempo song?

Not terribly important, but I'm curious.--Lf1033 11:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Touch And Go" -- polyrhythmic hit single

I just added the following to the Examples section:

"Touch And Go", a hit single by The Cars, has polymetric verses, with the drums and bass playing in 5/4, while the guitar, synthesizer, and vocals are in 4/4 (the choruses are entirely in 4/4.)

First of all, I feel that's badly written -- anyone want to clean it up? I'm still confused between "polyrhythm" and "polymeter". And I didn't know how to express another aspect of the song's tricky verses, which is that the synth and guitar, while in 4/4, play on the "off" eighths, the "and"s, rather than the one-two-three-fours. I don't know how to say that properly.

Secondly, this song hit #37 on the US Top Forty . . . and I'm wondering if that makes it the first (or only) polyrhythmic hit single?!? That'd be a bit of trivia worth inclusion in this article, and the band's article as well . . . a notable achievement for a band not known for tricky progressive arrangements. --63.25.113.207 17:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I've removed the citeneeded you appended to my addition, since you didn't bother to explain yourself here. For what, exactly, is a citation needed? This is an evident fact. You need only ask a musician familiar with the song. I am such a musician. I am the citation.
In fact, since it looks like you were just feeling cranky and addding citeneededs to everything in this section, I'm removing all of them. Including your especially prissy demands for page numbers. Please do not put them back. Thank you. --63.25.127.170 (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you had better familiarize yourself with a few things. First with WP:NOR, which will tell you why "I am the citation" is not acceptable. Second, read through Wikipedia:Citing_sources, which will explain why and how these "prissy" things are required on Wikipedia. Third, you should take a gander at Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures, where all of this has been discussed a appalling length.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
In the time it took you to replace all your citeneededs and write this response, you could have done something productive for the article. You had (and still have) an invitaton to clarify the wording, for example. Or, at least, since that Talk page you referenced is so long it apparently crashes some browsers, you could have briefly explained the relevant part of it. At the very least, recommended where to start on that page.
As it happens, I actually have the songbook for Panorama, and was thus able to source my addition. But the songbook is rarer than hen's teeth; I could just as easily not have had it -- and it's still obstructive of you to insist on a citation for that which is evident. It's not a question of "original research"; anybody with a decent pair of ears would notice this about the song if they listened. If I said, "Spaghetti is usually eaten with a tomato-based sauce", would you demand a citation for that?
It's all well and good to say statements need sources -- if my being incorrect would do any harm. But it wouldn't, and of course, I'm not. So that leaves me with the question, why would you put citeneededs on all this stuff? What's your motivation?? If I suggested you help out and go looking for sources yourself, how would you respond? If you won't get involved on a productive level, why get involved at all? I'm sorry, but I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith with you on this one. You could show good faith by fixing up the "Sources" section, because mine is a footnote (which is all I know how to do) and it doesn't match the format of the other sources.
Also, I'm going to try to forget that you used the phrase "you had better" with me. Not exactly putting your best foot forward. Please don't do that again.
--63.25.238.237 (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
All right, I apologize for the "you had better" phrase, which was an overreaction to the "I am the source. The overwhelming length of that talk page is precisely the point, since the greater part of it has to do with the need (or lack thereof) to cite sources. Particularly pertinent sections are Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures#Suggestion, Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures#RfC: Original research and reliable sources, and, if you are feeling especially patient, Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures#Deletions and sourcing. My motivation in demanding verification, since you ask, is to fulfill the requirements laid down by consensus in that discussion—requirements which spill over into this closely related article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. And I'm sorry for the haughty tone I took earlier. I've started reading that Talk page, and won't be editing these articles until I'm fairly sure I understand. --63.25.247.102 (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Audio Samples

The user who added the Audio Samples of different beats should clear that bit up. It looks terribly unprofessional. This is an encyclopaedia, remember, and it sounds a bit personalised. (Please do that, I would do it myself, but I haven't the heart to delete another user's changes) Watto the jazzman 06:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] time signature

why is there two articles on teh exact same subject, time signature and this one?· Lygophile has spoken 07:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Added example to polymeter

I added King Crimson as a notable example of polymeter in modern music. They were - after all - among the first in Rock/"alternative" music to use highly complex arrangements, harmonies, meters, melodies and rhythms. And - if I may say so - their usage of polymeter is far more complex than that of Meshuggah. Don't get me wrong, I love Meshuggah - but it's (as stated) essentially an unusual, "high-number", uneven meter (like 23/32) - and a 4/4 over it... the 4/4 is really almost always the same. So, I thought that informing the reader of another, earlier and more complex usage of polymeter in "rock"-music (or rather its derivates and descendants) would be a valuable addition.

MikeB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.103.213 (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing modern to postmodern in my addition. Didn't think of that . -MikeB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.148.250 (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No probs. It's easy to use the common meaning of "modern" (="recent") instead of making the more specific distinction between modern-era and postmodern era. Of course, the issue of modernism within the postmodern era compicates things a bit . . .--Jerome Kohl 22:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)