Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:07, 17 September 2005

Latest revision as of 13:42, 3 September 2024

Line 1:

{{Skip to talk}}

Would anyone care to take a stab at Katie Melua's "Closest Thing to Crazy"?!

{{Talk header|search=yes|disclaimer=no|bottom=yes}}

{{Notice|In accordance with Wikipedia's [[WP:OR|Original Research]] policy, musical works that might have unusual time signatures, but that do not yet have reliable sources confirming this, are excluded from this article. Such works should be included in the '''[[/Unsourced|Unsourced]]''' list until sources are found.}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|1=

{{WikiProject Lists|class=List|importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Songs}}

}}

{{Music requested|date=November 2016}}

{{Image requested|date=November 2016|music}}

{{Old AfD multi|date=11-23-06|small=yes}}

{{Archives}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 100K

|counter = 7

|minthreadsleft = 5

|algo = old(90d)

|archive = Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures/Archive %(counter)d

}}

By my reckoning, its groupings are as follows:

== Citation Style ==

Bridge: 4 4 4 4

What should be the correct citation style? I'm thinking that for PD works (that are on IMSLP,) a link to the IMSLP page works, but what about other pieces? Link to its page on the publisher's site? Where does it go? I will begin converting the links for works on IMSLP to the new format. [[User:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Wilh3lm]]^{[[User talk:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Go here to trout me if I do a stupid]]} 16:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Verse: 3 4 3 4, 3 4 4 4, 3 4 3 4, 3 4 4 4

:And that brings up another point, which is the standard of citation. For classical works such as "Mars" we can presumably trust IMSLP or even find a published work that says "this piece is in 5/4." But most rock is still under copyright, and mostly doesn't come with "scores" anyway. If a piece sounds "eligible" and you search for it online, any sheet music you find might be just an arrangement, like for someone to play at home on a piano, and online sources might be of questionable provenance / legality. [[User:KevinBTheobald|KevinBTheobald]] ([[User talk:KevinBTheobald|talk]]) 02:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Chorus: 4 4 4 4, 4 4 3 3, 4 2 4 2 2 2

Pretty sure Ascension by Vengeance Rising has a 17/4 signature but I don't know how to obtain a proper reference :p https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoFcF43Idrk <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/158.112.71.64|158.112.71.64]] ([[User talk:158.112.71.64#top|talk]]) 11:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

--[[User:Metanym|Metanym]] 5 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)

== All musical works in unusual metres ==

== Some of the entries here are kinda' funky, no? ==

I just added a clarification to the lead para, explicitly:

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.

<blockquote>

This list article does '''not''' include pieces notated using a standard time signature, no matter how unusual the metre.

</blockquote>

because it could be unclear to readers whether the Britten Passacaglia from Peter Grimes would be included; it is not. Although, were a third party to publish a score of the piece in 11, rather than 4, it might ''then ''fit within the scope of the article title. This is strange, since the music wouldn't change, just its representation. Which leads me to the question of the primacy of the sound or its notation - which is the more important?; or in practical terms:

*Should this article become a - i.e. change its title to - [[List of musical works in unusual metres]]? (''Without'' the redirect!)

*Or should it be supplemented by such an article? (Because some such are excluded from this article, by its own declaration.)

*Wouldn't it be better to have ''all ''such works in the one list? (Emphasising the music, not the notation.)

[[User:Yahya Abdal-Aziz|yoyo]] ([[User talk:Yahya Abdal-Aziz|talk]]) 00:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

:The time signature vs meter debate has extensively been had in the archives of this page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures/Archive_1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures/Archive_2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures/Archive_3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures/Archive_4] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures/Archive_5] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures/Archive_6] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures/Archive_7]

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).

:If such a thing were to happen I would write something like "''Passacaglia'' from [[Peter Grimes]] by [[Benjamin Britten]] is written as {{time signature|11|4}} in the XXX edition, although other editions write it in {{time signature|4|4}}."

:[[User:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Wilh3lm]]^{[[User talk:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Talk]]} 16:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

:If people are going to go around deleting others' edits, then there should be consistent "ground rules" for this page. Is this page all about signature, or meter? The title and text near the top SEEM to say signature. Okay... but wait! The 5/4 section just points to a separate "Quintuple meter" page which is clearly NOT about signature. And the 9/4 section explicitly excludes pieces whose 9/4 measures consist of 3 groups of 3 beats -- only, there's no way to tell from the score where the beat groups are supposed to be, you have to listen to it, which is "original research" -- and one of the listed pieces mentions its meter pattern (but I thought we were only looking at signature here...). [[User:KevinBTheobald|KevinBTheobald]] ([[User talk:KevinBTheobald|talk]]) 04:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

::I suggest you read some of the discussions in the page archives because the "time signature vs. meter" debate has already been had. 5 and 7 would make this article too long (indeed, it is already currently near the post-expand include size limit and has gone above such limit twice before, in June and October 2022), and time signatures of 5/x and 7/x ''usually'' correlate with quintuple and septuple meter (despite exceptions like the Britten being in 11 meter but 4/4 time signature), so those are the most closely related articles.

::Another issue has been the definition of "unusual" which was resolved with the finding of the Waugh citation that lists "common" time signatures, from which "unusual" is defined as anything not in that list. While the footnote in this page does not mention it, the [https://web.archive.org/web/20110718134555/http://www.musictechmag.co.uk/mtm/download/time-signatures original source] indicates that the 6/x, 9/x, and 12/x time signatures listed as "common" are specifically triplet-based compound meter. Thus, other divisions of those (as well as denominators other than 4, 8, and 16 with them, regardless of division) are unusual.

::It is indeed often possible to determine the grouping by the score. For example, Agon by Stravinsky uses dotted barlines to show the subdivision, as does his Concertino. Requiem Canticles explicitly states the groupings too. With shorter note values (such as eighth notes), beaming can also indicate grouping.

::With that in mind, I suggest [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures/Archive_4#RfC:_Do_we_need_sources_identifying_time_signatures_as_unusual? this section] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures/Archive_4#Nevermind_the_above_RFC the following section] of Archive 4 on the definition of "unusual" (but note that the debate on whether to focus on time signature or meter has shifted from 2008 to now), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures/Archive_5#What_meter_is_not. this section] of Archive 5. By [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures/Archive_6#Sources October 2012] it seems to be clearly in terms of ''notated'' time signature rather than meter. (see what Jerome Kohl said on the 17th at 18:05). I also ''highly'' suggest reading Kohl's comment from 21:54 on the same day on trying to change the definition of unusual time signature or changing the focus of this article (time signature versus meter). [[User:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Wilh3lm]]^{[[User talk:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Talk]]} 23:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

== On {{template|time signature}}, the PEIS, and the section on multiple unusual time signatures ==

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.

This article has many, '''many''' uses of {{template|time signature}} which have already lead to hitting the [[WP:PEIS|post-expand include size]] limit twice. As the article continues expanding, it is projected to hit that limit again soon. At time of writing, it is at 2,048,471 of 2,097,152 bytes. The majority of uses of {{template|time signature}} are in the section on combined unusual signatures.

What do others think?

I have created two copies of the article: [[User:Wilhelm von Hindenburger/Timesig1]] and [[User:Wilhelm_von_Hindenburger/Timesig2]] to test a method for reducing the PEIS by separating the listed pieces into the sections on those time signatures, which should be smaller given that, although the name of the piece and composer are repeated more often, they are probably smaller than the PEIS of the {{template|time signature}} template. In addition, because numerators of 5 and 7 are already omitted, just going to their respective articles on [[Quintuple meter]] and [[Septuple meter]], that will also reduce the size.

--[[User:Dkaplowitz|Dkaplowitz]] 05:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The first test of this, on [[Benjamin Britten]]'s [[Diversions for Piano Left Hand and Orchestra]], has successfully reduced the PEIS by about 5KB (four instances of {{template|time signature}}). If anyone wants to see the changes in size, they are on the talk page for the second test page: [[User talk:Wilhelm von Hindenburger/Timesig2]]. [[User:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Wilh3lm]]^{[[User talk:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Talk]]} 13:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

:After these tests showed success, I will be implementing this strategy on the main page. I will update with the PEIS as it goes. Revision [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1145496362 1145496362] had a PEIS of 2058305 bytes, the first revision after this test, revision [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1146279847 1146279847], has a PEIS of 2054375. I will be tracking effects here. [[User:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Wilh3lm]]^{[[User talk:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Talk]]} 22:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

In the case of DT's "Wait for Sleep" I removed it from "41/8" with the following comment: ''Adding 3 meas. of 5/8, 1 of 4/8, 3 of 6/8 and another of 4/8 into 41/8 isn't how a song's time signature is determined. This song has shifting time sigs, it's not one big long time sig.'' If you listen to the song there's no real phrasing that would suggest one long time signature. I also have a transcription of it that shows the shifting smaller time sigs.

:* Revision [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1146279847 1146279847]:

:** Pieces moved: 1

:** Time signatures removed: 2 (this line is for 5/x, 7/x, and any non-unusual time signatures also listed in an entry in "Combined unusual signatures".)

:** Time signatures moved: 1

:** New PEIS: 2054375

:** PEIS reduction: 3930

:* Revision [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1146283428 1146283428]:

:** Pieces moved: 3

:** Time signatures removed: 7

:** Time signatures moved: 5

:** New PEIS: 2038643

:** PEIS reduction: 15732

:* Revision [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1146368324 1146368324]:

:** Pieces moved: 1

:** Time signatures removed: 5

:** Time signatures moved: 1

:** New PEIS: 2030777

:** PEIS reduction: 7866

:* Revision [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1146613681 1146613681]

:** Pieces moved: 1

:** Time signatures removed: 3

:** Time signatures moved: 2

:** New PEIS: 2022911

:** PEIS reduction: 7866

:** Note: Two time signatures in the piece were already listed in both combined unusual signatures and in the respective section (counted as removed, along with 5/4 since it has its own section). One time signature was only in the combined section (counted as moved), and one was listed only in the time signature section, but the wrong one (13/8 instead of 13/16), which I fixed (counted as moved)

:* Revision [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1146614661 1146614661]

:** Pieces moved: 1

:** Time signatures removed: 2

:** Time signatures moved: 2

:** New PEIS: 2017665

:** PEIS reduction: 5246

:* A number of intervening edits occurred, unrelated to reducing the PEIS. Their net effect was an increase in the PEIS to 2043952.

:* Revision [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1158069796 1158069796]

:** Pieces moved: 1

:** Time signatures removed: 4

:** Time signatures moved: 14

:** New PEIS: 2026886

:** PEIS reduction: 17066

:** Note: Four time signatures involved required creating new sections, thus requiring one instance of {{t|time signature}}. One time signature has a numerator above 19 and thus the full time signature must still be stated.

:* Revision [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1158413555 1158413555]

:** Pieces moved: 1

:** Time signatures removed: 3

:** Time signatures moved: 12

:** New PEIS: 2015075

:** PEIS reduction: 11811

:** Note: As before, six time signatures with large numerators must still be stated.

:* Due to edits in between, the PEIS expanded to 2032697.

:* Revision [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1195695247 1195695247]

:** Pieces moved: 1 (set of 20 pieces)

:** Time signatures removed: 17

:** Time signatures moved: 48

:** New PEIS: 1953150

:** PEIS reduction: 79547

:** Note: see full diff for details.

:* Revision [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1211082292 1211082292]

:** Pieces moved: 2

:** Time signatures removed: 7

:** Time signatures moved: 8

:** New PEIS: 1938725

:** PEIS reduction: 14425

:** Note: Four time signatures with large numerators must still be stated, two of them involving two uses of {{template|time signature}} because of how they are notated in the score, using the form X/Y(Z/[note value]).

:* Due to edits in between, the PEIS increased to 2076492

:* Revision [https://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=1241030918 1241030918]

:** Pieces moved: 1

:** Time signatures removed: 19

:** Time signatures moved: 19

:** New PEIS: 2024878

:** PEIS reduction: 51614

:** Note: One time signature required a new section.

:** Note 2: Because past me was bad at leaving an explanation of what he was doing, I misinterpreted "moved" and "removed" and originally had the wrong numbers. These have now been corrected. [[User:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Wilh3lm]]^{[[User talk:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Talk]]} 22:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, to stop the software from whining about signatures every time, I will be collecting them here: [[User:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Wilh3lm]]^{[[User talk:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Talk]]} 20:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC) [[User:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Wilh3lm]]^{[[User talk:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Talk]]} 23:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC) [[User:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Wilh3lm]]^{[[User talk:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Talk]]} 22:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC) [[User:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Wilh3lm]]^{[[User talk:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Talk]]} 19:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC) [[User:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Wilh3lm]]^{[[User talk:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Talk]]} 22:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling people adding shifting time sigs into one huge time sig is making this a "bigger is better" contest?

== Music that you made ==

--[[User:Dkaplowitz|Dkaplowitz]] 12:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm just curious because I can't find any rules about this. If you made piece of music that can be put on here, can you yourself put it on the wiki page? [[User:Isalick34|Isalick34]] ([[User talk:Isalick34|talk]]) 16:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

: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 <s>rodeo</s>Hoe-Down - say about 200 - note the 3/4 bar near the beginning, and list the whole thing as 403/4). [[User:DavidBrooks|David Brooks]] 19:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

::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 [[WP:V|verifiability]]. I propose this again. Listening to a song and then guessing its time signature is [[WP:NOR|original research]]. &mdash;[[User:Wahoofive|Wahoofive]] ([[User talk:Wahoofive|talk]]) 22:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

:::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. --[[User:Dkaplowitz|Dkaplowitz]] 04:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

::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 [[WP:CITE|cite sources]] for everything in every article. Please read [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOR]]. &mdash;[[User:Wahoofive|Wahoofive]] ([[User talk:Wahoofive|talk]]) 20:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

:That'd be a conflict of interest, so per [[WP:COI]] it'd be discouraged. It'd also need to be [[WP:RS|adequately supported]] by [[WP:INDY|independent sourcing]]. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' ^{''([[User talk:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>]])''} 16:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

== Grouped as ==

::ok thanks, I couldn't find the info [[User:Isalick34|Isalick34]] ([[User talk:Isalick34|talk]]) 17:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

== Donkey Kong Country - Bad Boss Boogie ==

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? [[User:DavidBrooks|David Brooks]] 19:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It's apparently in 29/8 according to this guy's blog and a bunch of YT comments: https://themartiangeek.wordpress.com/tag/uncommon-time-signatures/

: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). --[[User:Dkaplowitz|Dkaplowitz]] 04:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

However I guess we can't include it because it wasn't muh journalist working at muh kotaku/other arbitrarily defined 'professional games journalist' despite that it's not exactly from an obscure title or anything: the composer and the game both have articles on the site and I somehow wouldn't be surprised if there's an wiki article about the game's music specifically[[Special:Contributions/86.136.110.180|86.136.110.180]] ([[User talk:86.136.110.180|talk]]) 13:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

== Recent mass deletions by 68.50.100.146 ==

== emme by phonon is part {{S|71/160}} 71/40 ==

I hope this was a typo, but I'm not sure judging by the previous history of inaccuracy and constant reversions back to inaccurate entries by the person at the IP address: 68.50.100.146, despite articulate notes why said entries were wrong. Regardless, I've made a report to mooderators for review.

yes you read that right [[Special:Contributions/47.154.103.3|47.154.103.3]] ([[User talk:47.154.103.3|talk]]) 16:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

:oops wasnt logged in [[User:I Drink Water n Cats|I Drink Water n Cats]] ([[User talk:I Drink Water n Cats|talk]]) 16:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

== Deletions ==

::I was just yesterday watching [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq1XUOrkTHo a video] by Shawn Crowder in which he and Phonon discuss this piece. At 5:18, Phonon begins explaining that he viewed a particular section as being in {{time signature|17.75|10}}. Crowder then attempts to explain this time signature, but makes a major mistake in treating the 10 in the denominator as subdivisions of a ''quarter'' note instead of a whole note, instead producing {{time signature|17.75|40}}, and then multiplying the numerator and denominator to get rid of the decimal, resulting in {{time signature|71|160}}. However, I believe that Phonon himself stating the {{time signature|17.75|10}} would be a reliable source for its addition - the {{time signature|5.2|4}} and {{time signature|3.2|4}} also could be added. [[User:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Wilh3lm]]^{[[User talk:Wilhelm von Hindenburger|Talk]]} 11:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

hello i would like to say that i am not a vandal but i am highly agitated at the recent deletions/corrections of my entries, and i only got a private message today, nobody tried to contact me before. my being new to to wikipedia might be why i wasn't on the discussion for this as i should've known more about how this little thing works, and understandably there should've been more communication. however i thought the experts here would agree with the entires or would have listened to all of them firsthand before claiming they were frivolous. i wasn't expecting to have to explain them, because you all know so much about irregular meters. all the entires i posted had been verified by musicians and professors and other authorities someone here couldve contacted me before deleting them. if you had asked me previously, sorry but i am new to this

:Hello, and thanks for chiming in. Welcome to the wiki. I don't think anyone is trying to say they know more than you. However, if you click the "history" button on this article, or the "discussion" button, you will see that many of your entries that were changed/deleted included comments as to why they were changed/deleted. Other participants were trying to open a discussion about the topic, not to dictate. If you disagreed, it would have been fine for you to say why you disagreed (in the discussion page or on the offending individual's talk page) -- and also to cite your sources. But when you kept reverting any changes back with no communication (and because you are doing all your editing under the cloak of anonymity), it was perceived as vandalism. I would also call into question your deleting much of the article in retaliation. That's definitely vandalism. I hope you get it all sorted out and can contribute some useful entries to the article. [[User:Dkaplowitz|Dkaplowitz]] 04:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

== 17/24?? ==

I know Kyle Gann's piece is probably written down, so the time signature is undeniable, but what does a denominator of 24 even mean? That the triplet sixteenth-note gets the beat? I think it deserves some explanation in the article. —[[User:Keenan Pepper|Keenan Pepper]] 04:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

== 17/24 ==

I don't really know if I believe this buy but this is what he explains, and someone told me that he did write a song using 133/32 but I admit it sounds a little outrageous

http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/archives20040301.shtml

:I read this source you cited (the first time you posted it in the main article). Here's what he says: "For one thing, its meter numerators may be limited to powers of 2, but its denominators go up to 99. I don’t promise I’ll never use 133/32 meter, but in my Desert Sonata I have a long passage in 41/16 meter,..." That's all this article says about 133/32 time. It's speculation. He's not saying that he ever did (or even that he ever will) write a song in that time signature. [[User:Dkaplowitz|Dkaplowitz]] 04:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

== Time to let the list go ==

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.