Talk:Metre (music)/Archive 1

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)

Sting "I Hung My Head" is 9/8=(2+3)+(2+2)
Just listen and you'll easily hear it. And it's most definitely not (2+2)+(2+2)+1. Such a meter is extremely unlikely ever to appear in written music. It would just be written as (2+2)+(2+3). The final 8th note could simply be accented (in "I Hung My Head", the final 8th note features as an unaccented note the final beat, which is also a simple beat). On another note, the song also features a true polymeter - hi-hat is in common time (could also be analysed as a (4/4+5/4)+... hypermeasure laid over a (9/8+9/8)+... hypermeasure; that could be called a poly-hypermeter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.218.27 (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That song is definitely a good example of an additive rhythm, and in total agreement with the above, it's not (4+4+1)/8 but sounds most as (2+3+2+2)/8 (the bass guitar and percussion make this quite clear). However I found here: http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/scorchVPE.asp?ppn=sc0010568 that it is notated as alternating 4/8 and 5/8 bars which doesn't seem to make much sense as the bass is tied into the second, fourth, sixth bars and so on; starting with a 5/8 would make more sense. Maybe someone with access to the original sheet music or Sting's brain could clarify what the notation is? ;) Mathi80 (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

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)
 * One thought. Is there a difference in sound with 3/4 and 3/8? Can I hear a difference? Logictheo (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

English Phenomenon?
Re Logictheo: 3/4 vs 3/8 is a matter of tempo and notation in my mind, not of metre.

Having had a fair bit of music theory in the country of Bach, Beethoven, Brahms and Wagner where I grew up, I can say that I never heard of this distinction between simple and compound metre, and would be interested if the concept exists outside of English-native countries. Of course I learnt the difference between e.g. a 3/4 and a 6/8 metre, being arithmetically the same but musically very different, in that one is divided into three, the other into two beats. The 3/4 would be a simple meter, as each beat can be divided into multiples of 2, while the 6/8 is a compound metre, where each beat is divided into 3 or multiples thereof. Put simply, if the note filling or occupying one complete beat of a bar has to be dotted (in the 6/8 this is a dotted quaver (British English), or dotted fourth note (US-English)), than you have a compound metre. But of course there is much musical appeal to be gained from blurring those lines, as happened right from the Renaissance (e.g. in the Tourdion, Publié par Pierre Attaingnant, Paris 1530) to Bernstein, as in the West Side Story example given in the main article. Mathi80 (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathi80 (talk • contribs)

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:

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?

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 Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 06:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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.

Definition of compound meter contradicts the examples
"Compound meter [...] is a time signature or meter in which each measure is divided into three or more parts, or two uneven parts (as opposed to two even parts, called simple metre)." But then the first example given is "6/8, divided into two equal parts". So is 6/8 compound or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.158.242 (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It should say each beat is divided into three or more parts. In 6/8, there are two beats in a bar, each divided into three, so it is compound. 2.25.131.30 (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Edwin Gordon's terminology
In Music Learning Theory, meters are described as usual when the macrobeats (the "main" beat, if you will) are of equal temporal length; unusual meters occur when the macrobeats are of unequal temporal length. Also, meters may be duple, triple, or combined, depending on how the macrobeats divide into microbeats (what is often called "subdividing" by others).

So, for example, a rhythm pattern composed of quarter notes and paired eighth notes and notated in 2/4 or 4/4 would be usual duple meter; a pattern notated in 6/8 using dotted quarters and eighths only would be usual triple meter. Usual combined meter would occur, say, in 4/4 if you had two quarter notes followed by a 3-quarter-note triplet. Unusual meters might be notated in 5/8 or 7/8, for example. In these meters, one of the macrobeats ("big beats") is longer (temporally) than the others in each measure.

All of this terminology makes complete sense (to me) if one thinks in terms of conducting. A 5/8 (or 6/8) at even a reasonably moderate tempo will likely be conducted "in 2". Many pieces notated in 3/4 are conducted "in 1". The conductor's beat = the macrobeat in most instances. Each macrobeat can contain either two or three (only!) microbeats.

I think including some of this information / alternate terminology in the article would be helpful, but I didn't want to make such a drastic addition without discussing it here first. If it helps, here's one source: http://giml.org/mlt_lsa_rhythmcontent.php Better sources would include Gordon's books. Thoughts?? OscarTheCat3 (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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.)

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)

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! --Amp e rsand2006 ( &amp; ) 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)

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)

"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 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, Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures, and, if you are feeling especially patient, Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures. 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)
 * --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, Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures, and, if you are feeling especially patient, Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures. 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)

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)


 * How do they look unprofessional? Or how did they? Hyacinth (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Original research
What in the article may be original research and needs to be verified or cited? Hyacinth (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

4/4
As of the current revision, the section, "Rhythmic meter" says that that traditional western music has "four different time signatures in common use." None of those common time signatures appear to allow for 4/4. They list the top number as being either 2, 3, 6, or 9. But isn't 4/4 the most common meter in Western music, especially during the period specified? Now, I don't honestly know whether it could fall into one of the categories listed---as described, it certainly would not appear to. But I could be wrong. I don't know. I came to this article to learn about meter, not to edit about it. But I can see only one of three possibilities here: I'm stark wrong about 4/4 being one of the most important meters in Western music, or the article assumes I know enough about music to calculate 4/4 out of one of the examples listed (despite explicitly stating the upper number much be such and such), or someone who knows the subject should probably put that in there. 24.24.81.53 (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I sympathise. Wikipedia should, I think, be about gently leading an outsider enquirer into the subject. But looking at this article, it seems to be written by musicians, for an audience of musicians. There are mentions of 4/4, but not in that section.  There are mentions of quadruple meter, but that section explicitly excludes it, by claiming (uncited) "four different time signatures in common use". I've just adjusted that to "four different families of time signature in common use", but that probably doesn't really help.
 * The article needs substantial work. There is also significant overlap with time signatures. There was a suggestion earlier in the talk page to merge them. It might be worth considering that. (The outcome may be to keep them separate, because of different emphases, but hopefully the consideration might sharpen focus, and help turn the article outwards to include outside enquirers.)
 * In the meantime, I would suggest that you look towards the time signature article.
 * Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I noticed mentions of 4/4 in the article, but since it wasn't listed as a popular meter, I began to doubt my sanity.  As I said, I don't know much about the technical aspects of music; thus I was almost willing to take the article's lack of mention of 4/4 as a fact.  Conviction by omission, if you like.  As you suggested, however, I went to time signature and found my questions largely answered.  Your rephrasing to adjust matters from declarative to exemplary will indeed prevent people in my situation from being so hideously confused---you have my gratitude.24.24.81.53 (talk) 05:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. 4/4 is a very common time signature, perhaps even the most common in the Western broadly classical tradition (including rock etc.). Indeed, it is alternatively called "common time": that big "C" that you sometimes see instead. I suspect that some music theorists would say that it is part of the "simple duple" category, regarding the four beats as two groups each of two beats. And (as the article suggests) perhaps others might say that there should be a "simple quadruple". (Just keep remembering that the actual music comes first, and is so often beyond what our words can describe...!) Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I have jumped in recklessly with my size 12s, but I think 24.24.81.53's complaint is perfectly justified, and I have edited the article accordingly. Feline Hymnic is also right to suppose that "some music theorists" regard quadruple meter as a subspecies of "simple duple". In fact, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a theorist who does not view things this way, though "quadruple meter" is also a term used for this specific variant. I have tried to reflect this in my edits. Two other things, however. According to the former wording of this article, 24.24.81.53's reading of "four different time signatures in common use", while quite correct in itself, was actually a misreading of what was intended as a reference to the Common-Practice Period (abbreviated CPP). I have corrected the text to make this clearer. Finally, "that big 'C'" referred to by Feline Hymnic is technically not a letter C at all, and the apparent connection to "common time" is pure coincidence. It is actually a remnant from pre-CPP notational practice (14th–16th centuries), where "perfect" (triple) time was represented by a complete circle, and "imperfect" (i.e., duple) time by a broken circle. This in turn has called my attention to a suspect sentence at the end of the lead paragraph that will require a little research to locate a suitable source, but the idea of "measure" or "meter" predates the use of bar lines by about 300 years. Thank you both for calling my attention to this problem.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I think we agree throughout! At Time signature I've just done some considerable re-working to try to make it more "user-friendly". Whether I've succeeded is for others to judge. But I'm beginning to think that some sort of merger should be proposed of the form: "These two topics seem almost the same. Is there any good reason for keeping them apart?". Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we are in total agreement. There might well be reason to keep the articles separate, if I can just get around to correcting one mistaken notion that I have already flagged with a "source" query. That is that the concept of "meter" actually predates the use of meter signatures by at least 300 years. The date difference depends of course on whether or not you regard mensuration signs as time signatures or not, but it also involves the distinction between a sign and the thing signified.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that User:Johanna-Hypatia has de-weaseled that sentence, but I have re-inserted a "Fact" tag, since I remain convinced that the notion of "meter" long predates the use of barlines. I believe I have found one source, dating from ca. 1430, but it is mighty obscure (a commentary on Jean de Muris, by one Wenceslaus de Prachatitz). My Latin is not very good, but the relevant passage reads, "Metrica est que considerat proporciones pedum in metro. hac siquidem musica metra consistunt, quia in arsi et thesi id est in eleuacione et depressione sillabarum quantum ad correpcionem et produccionem earundem." I am hoping to find a German translation or at least a summary in the only modern edition (1935) or a related series of articles (1936 to 1941), by Gerhard Pietzsch, but this could take a little while.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello JK! The above says; "Metre is that which concerneth the proportions of the foot in measure (that is, musical mensuration results from the short and long of the poetic foot - Red). Musical metre consists of (thesis and arsis), that is, in the raising and lowering of syllabic quantity." The last few words I do not quite get - "so as to correct and produce them"? This is late, Italianate Latin, sorry. Redheylin (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Erm, yes, I do get that much (though your translation is in rather archaic English—you surely did not make this yourself?). It is the latter part of the text that confuses me, as well. "Which in arsis and thesis is in the elevation and depression of syllabic quantity …" (at this point I fail). Sadly, the 1936 German source I mentioned has proved not to be interested in the content of this passage, but rather focusses on the provenance of the text. Interesting in itself, but not helpful in understanding this passage. Fortunately, I am in my daily employment among Latinists (though few are well acquainted with Medieval Latin), so I may be able to solve this problem.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So we'd be alright saying that, prior to barred measures, the short and long, in conjunction with the poetic metre, sufficiently defined the rhythm of the phrase (seeing that the system developed from vocal music with text). Yes, as I said, the last bit is Italianate Latin, assuming that the common mistake of t's for c's has not happened here, and requires a specialist. The archaisms were caused by "translator's syndrome", a rare complaint in which the mental attitude of the source acts upon the imagination of the translator, though not to the extent of being sure what he meant.


 * The most important thing, from my view, is to determine when the usage of metre to denote long and short consonants gave way to its usage to denote stressed and unstressed beats. The above text uses the classical system, so that eg a iamb - u would have to be in triple time, like a gigue. This is what is meant by a higher and lower quantity of syllable. The last word earundem, though it agrees with the previous two words, which are accusative following "ad" (in order to), appears to refer back to "of those syllables", so, " for the correct production of those (syllables)", I think - that is; we have the meat of it.Redheylin (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a tricky business, to be sure. In this particular citation, it boils down to the interpretation of "arsi et thesi". However, what may be the more important point is the application of the word "metrica" to musical durational patterns, rather than (or in addition to) "mensura". "Metrica" is of course used commonly from Classical times onward in describing poetry, and it is a vexed issue to what extent it applies strictly to syllable lengths, without involving stress patterns at all. On the other hand, it may be sufficient simply that the term was in use, even if its meaning (like those of so many other terms) shifted over time. I also need to track down Johannes de Muris's writings, upon which Wenceslaus's treatise is a commentary.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: I just noticed a (possibly contentious) statement in the lede that is relevant here: "Properly, 'meter' describes the whole concept of measuring rhythmic units …". Under this definition, stress or accent are not necessary components.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Polymeter
Please see [here|http://www.enotes.com/music-encyclopedia/polymeter] the view that regularly alternating rhythms are "changing" metres, not polymetres. I am therefore removing the bit about Bernstein's Courante. Redheylin (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Examples include Béla Bartók's String Quartet No. 2.
 * Leonard Bernstein's "America" (from West Side Story) employs alternating measures of 6/8 (compound duple) and 3/4 (simple triple). This gives a strong sense of two, followed by three, stresses.

The paragraph below has also been excised since it creates unrefd distinctions which cannot therefore be used in the article's structure


 * These are all examples of what is sometimes referred to as "tactus-preserving polymeter." Since the pulse is the same, the various meters eventually agree. (Four measures of 7/4 = seven measures of 4/4). The more complex, and less-common "measure preserving polymeter," occurs when there exists more than one meter, but the measure stays constant. This is also referred to as polyrhythm (Waters 1996,; Larson 2006,

Redheylin (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks to me like a botched attempt to add referenced material, rather than out-and-out unreferenced distinctions. The trouble is, without page numbers it is very difficult to look up Waters 1996 and Larson 2006 in order to find out whether they merely verify the last sentence ("This is also referred to as polyhryhm"), or if one or the other of them also may be the source for the unusual (though possibly useful) expressions tactus-preserving polymeter" and "measure preserving polymeter".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes JK it looks like that. I was hoping someone would jump up and verify it if I cut it. Yes it is possibly useful but not in that state!! Redheylin (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to restore this passage as it is correct and the current passage in the article is misleading and wrong. Try a google scholar search for Polyrhythm or Polymeter and you'll come up with lots of scholarly articles using the distinction. See for instance Hidden Complexity : Rhythmic Processes in Ligeti’s Arc-en-ciel and scroll down to where the author has a couple of figures showing a measure preserving polymeter and a tactus preserving polymeter. This passage shouldn't have been excised - and when scholarly passages are in question an easy first check is google scholar.


 * I've restored it now and re-written it for clarity. BTW I find it strange that though Polyrhythm and Polytempo have separate pages (well deserverd) that Polymeters, equally deserving of a page of its own or more so, is merged with this Meter page. Robert Walker (talk)

Proposed merger
It looks to me like Meter (hymn) doesn't contain anything which would more easily fit in this article. Therefore, I am proposing that they be merged. John Carter (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. The two topics are quite separate. Music meter is about (more or less) time signatures of music in (more or less) any sort of Western music (from baroque to hard rock). By contrast hymn meter is about the poetry of a particular type of text - albeit that text may be sung to music.  Take the well-known hymn "Amazing Grace". The hymn text has a hymn-meter described as "8.6.8.6", based solely, only on the text itself (the syllable counts of the lines).  Its usual tune has a music-meter, described as "3/4", based solely, only on the musical rhythm of that tune.  They are very different concepts (one textual, with no direct reference to music; one musical with no direct reference to text) which just happen to share the same name.  Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I should have caught that myself. Unfortunately, once one of these merge proposals is started, I don't know if they can be terminated too quickly. Having seen what you said, though, I would myself oppose a merger. Thanks again. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree - I can stand it if it does not happen, but I had little option just now but to use that very "Amazing Grace" as an example (since it was already mentioned). Feline, if metre=time then this article should go, become a redirect. But it does not: it also concerns line length and "verse" form. I just had to deal with this article and found that half of the time metre was time and the other half it was not. Hence the pic at the top. Yes, musical metre derives from poetry, there's no doubt. And yes, one can set a common metre tune in various times. But the reason that hymns say 8888 or whatever at the top is exactly so that a fitting tune can be selected. And this is how "metre" became a musical term. SO it is absolutely appropriate to merge the two. They do not "just happen" to share a name. Fact is, a great deal of music has words, and that is how it came about. As the article says, by no means all music theorists use the term, but it is as good as anything to hold the various terms they DO use and without this dimension the article is redundant. Redheylin (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * To express it another way - under the hypothesis that hymn metre is NOT musical but verbal - then in what way does hymn metre differ from poetic meter - should it not be merged THERE? Redheylin (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that Meter (hymn) and Meter (music) should *not* be merged. In music it refers much more to the rhythm and beat of a piece, while in hymnody it references the poetic setting of the hymn text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.110.212 (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Even though the word is the same its meaning in the two contexts is quite different. Merging the two articles would probably complicate things and possibly confuse the reader. I'm removing the merger template since it looks like the template has been up for the a while and most of the people who left comments agree that it should not be merged.--dbolton (talk) 02:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

British spelling priority, revisited
I have just reverted edits made by User:Redheylin, an editor whose integrity I respect, on two grounds. First, and most important, the changes were from American norms (-ize endings) to one British norm (-ise endings), on grounds of "British spelling priority" for this article. The article's very title and lead sentence, however, both give the American variant of the subject: "meter", instead of the British "metre". About two years ago (see further up on this discussion page) this matter was discussed, with no consensus having been reached. When the article was created, the spelling indeed was "metre", and this title was subsequently altered to the American variant. Shall we now re-open discussion of whether this ought to be reverted to the original (UK) spelling?

Second, it is incorrect to claim that -ise endings for words such as "colonise", "centralise", and "theorise" are the UK standard, though practice has been drifting in that direction for more than half a century now. Conservative British usage (as represented by the Oxford University Press and The Times) prefers the -ize form in the great majority of cases, while allowing that -ise is a variant for many such words ("analyse" is the major exception, on the etymological principle that it entered English via French, and not directly from the original Greek); the more up-to-date Guardian style guide, on the contrary, accepts only the -ise form, except in words like "prize" and "size", where it is not a question of a suffix, in any case.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I might have missed something; if so my apologies. I think the particular "practice" case might be introducing a different, unrelated issue, namely noun-versus-verb. Here in the UK such entities tend to be "..ice" for the noun (my practice, your licence, his advice, etc.) but "...ise" for the verb (I practise, you license [the product], he advises, etc.).  But the topic under discussion here is variant spellings within the same verb or noun form. I suggest that we steer away from this "practice" digression, which is (I think) a separate topic not relevant to this particular within-the-same-form topic. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you have, indeed, missed something. I did not mention the issue of "practice" vs. "practise" in UK vs. US usage, which is wholly outside of this discussion. (In fact, there is only a single occurrence in the entire article of either word and, since it is a noun in the phrase "common practice period", there is no question of UK vs. American usage. My statement, "practice has been drifting in that direction …", might have been differently rendered as "UK usage has been drifting in that direction …".) The spelling changes Redheylin made were from "organization" to "organisation" and "organizing" to "organising", claiming "brit engl priority" in the edit summary. I am merely asking whether Redheylin (or anyone else) wishes to re-open the debate over reverting the spelling of the article's title to "Metre (music)". It was changed now quite a long time ago without any reason being given, subsequently debated but not resolved, and I took Redheylin's claim of "brit engl priority" to be a subtle way of suggesting that this title ought to be reverted. Perhaps I am reading too much into it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right, Jermome. I really did miss it! Sorry. I saw the word "practice" in your text and, on unthinking, brain-disengaged autopilot, I had rolled it in with the topic being discussed rather than as part of your commentary. Mea culpa. (Summary for other readers; ignore my earlier comments in this section.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Metre in Great Britain and Meter in the USA. In Greece the transliteration of Μέτρο is metro, so for Greece it could be (metre) that fits the most. The article begins with "Meter or metre is a term that". It's mentioned. I would like other changes in the article, more practical. I would like more music examples so one can listen to meter/metre. Can you use music programs(that create examples and then upload them so we can listen to more examples? Helpful for me at least! Logictheo (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think a few facts shoud be repeated, before deciding on how to handle this (and some other music terms articles):
 * . The article was started as "Metre", in 2002, and retained that name for approximately five years.
 * . Likewise, the spelling in the article was predominantly British.
 * . One user, User:Haberg, moved both this and some other music term articles to American spelling; here the following motivation is given: Chiefly British variation obseolete also among the British professional musicians.
 * In my mind, this means that the British priority is established without any doubt. AFAIK, our general principle still is that for subjects not directly linked to either UK or USA (or e.g. Australia), the spelling mode established when the article was established should prevail. This principle has been disregarded and sometimes disputed in many instances; my impression is that this was done prevalently by new American editors, who often were not quite aware of our policies. This means, that if you take a poll of the naming for a particular article, started in 'British mode', you'll have trouble to get a clear majority for retaining or reverting to British spelling; but, on the other hand, you'll not be able to collect much support for changing our general policy.
 * My conclusion is that indeed British spelling should be retained or restored in this group of articles, to the extent that they were started in 'British mode'.
 * On the other hand, the argument of Haberg's actually wasn't quite the common "American dominates the net and therefore should be employed exclusively in enwiki" one. Haberg essentially argued that meter is the dominating spelling also among contemporary professional British musicians. Now, this is a factual question, and I do not know the answer. I think that it is relevant, but we should also ask about usage e.g. in British scools of music and in modern British works on music theory. I don't know what the dominating usage is there, either.
 * Thus, yes I should like to reopen the issue of the spelling of the article names; but just in discussing Haberg's claim that the dominating modern British spelling indeed is "meter". If this is true, then the article should remain here; if it is false, it should be moved back to "metre".
 * However, whether or not the article is moved to "the old" British spelling metre or retained at the presupposed "new British spelling" meter, the British usage is to be the guide, and the British spelling of other words in the article should be retained/restored. JoergenB (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent summary, thank you JoergenB. To get the ball rolling on the question of present British usage, the OED (a bastion of conservative usage, to be sure), tells us that the spelling "meter", from Old English, is "now chiefly U.S." (of course, in the sense of a measuring instrument, "meter" is the normal UK spelling, but we are speaking here of poetic and musical usage). The usual Oxford references (New Grove, Oxford Dictionary of Music, Oxford Companion to Music) naturally adhere to the OED standard, as do books published by Oxford University Press. Ashgate Publishers also refer their authors to the Oxford style guides. The Guardian style guide (online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/m), generally regarded as more "up to date", unfortunately does not address this particular issue, though of course they only recognise (= OED "recognize") the spelling "metre" for the unit of linear measure. Cambridge University Press seems to be divided on the issue, employing "meter" in The Cambridge Companions to the Beatles, to Haydn, and to Beethoven, but "metre" in The Cambridge Companions to Bach, to Elgar, and to Ravel, and in the Cambridge Companion to Twentieth-Century Opera. Perhaps other editors can address the question of usage in textbooks and the like from other publishers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that six years is sufficient time to wait for any dissenting voices to be heard, so I have boldly reverted the article title and spelling in the article itself for conform with British usage (to the best of my ability). I have left two instances of American spelling in a direct quotation, and the various redirect markings to Wikipedia articles using the American spellings.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Please give compound meter its own article
24.16.215.169 (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * the mathematics of compound meter have been completely glossed over in this article. as of 2010.03.02, this article contains a link (to compound meter) which redirects back to itself. i surmise this means that compound meter used to have its own article, which is now merged into content about meter in general--a decision that significantly reduces the quality of both articles.
 * currently, this article focuses on nomenclature and the opinions that various people have published (about nomenclature). it seems to me that the writers wanted highlight the aspects of meter that are universal to all media of composition.
 * however, anyone who arrived at this page seeking deeper understanding of compound meter will find all of this page to be Irrelevant. Music notation is distinctly mathematical. At the same time, it is not fully self describing; it is shorthand, and it expects the musician to know enough to be able to interpret.
 * Please resurrect an article about compound meter that fully describes the mathematics and the notation.


 * What, specifically, is missing or lacking? Hyacinth (talk) 03:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There was an article at Compound meter (music), click the link in the "(Redirected from Compound meter (music))" notice to be taken to the redirect, where you can browse it's edit history (see also Talk:Compound meter (music)). Hyacinth (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not only that, but Time signature specifically refers to that article as an expansion of that section. There's no way that article should have been deleted without folding it into that section. Your best bet is to get more information in that section, until a new article needs to be folded back out again.
 * — trlkly 01:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nevermind. I just checked. They did not go through the proper channels for a merge or delete proposal. I'm restoring the previous article. You can do the same in the future. — trlkly 01:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference formatting
In what way are the inline citations in this article "not properly formatted"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there has been no response, I am assuming the banner was placed mistakenly, and am therefore removing it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should look at practically any other wikipedia article and see how the citations are done lol, this page is in its own world — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.151.39 (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with the correctness of the formatting used in this article? You my also care to read Talk:Meter_(music), above, Parenthetical referencing, and WP:CITEVAR.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In today's addition of the harvard-reference links, I notice some incorrect formatting has been introduced by the templates. The parenthesized dates should be followed by periods, not commas. This correct format can be seen in some entries in the list of sources, but not in others. Does anyone know how to fix this mistake?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I seem to have found a partial solution on my own. The "citation" template used appears to be intended for footnotes, since it produces comma-delimited fields. For books, the "Cite book" template seems to result in the correct formatting. There must be similar "Cite journal", "Cite entry in an encyclopedia", "Cite book chapter", and "Cite LP recording" templates (not necessarily under those names, of course), which should be substituted for the corresponding remaining entries.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Compound Meter - Round Deux
I just read over the arguments for merging the compound meter article into this one. However, I believe that the subject can be expanded upon (especially regarding the recent addition of citation needed warnings). This article is lengthy as it is and it's inappropriate to lengthen the compound meter part more than it is already. So with that, I say we should reinstate Compound meter (music) and shorten the actual length of the blurb in this article. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: "Musical scale" → "Scale (music)"
I have initiated a formal RM action to move Musical scale to Scale (music). Contributions and comments would be very welcome; decisions of this kind could affect the choice of title for many music theory articles.

N oetica Tea? 00:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Which?
Is it the cymbals or the drum the denotes the time in "Simple triple drum pattern: divides each of three beats into two"? Is there a single(same) note example? 117.207.238.60 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)class=c
 * As the example stands, the cymbal would be insufficient to establish the pattern as triple time (as opposed to compound duple), except for the manner of notation; the drum similarly is insufficient to determine whether the meter is simple or compound. Only the two together denote "simple triple" time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hypermetre
The opening sentence contains at least four problems.

"Hypermeter is large-scale meter (as opposed to surface-level meter) created by hypermeasures which consist of hyperbeats ."


 * "Large-scale meter" may not be clear to anyone but an expert.
 * Everything is defined on the "surface"—how could it be otherwise? I don't understand the proposition that metre is "surface-level" and hypermetre is not.
 * The proposition that hypermetre is "created by hypermeasures" appears circular.
 * The proposition that hypermetric spans consist (entirely) of hyperbeats cannot be true, logically. They might start with a hyperbeat, but must be followed by one or more downbeats before another hyperbeat occurs. Tony   (talk)  15:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This may be one of the problems with reliable sources: the best ones are often written by academic researchers who live so far up in their ivory towers that they cannot even see the ground below, let alone the people down there clamouring for clarification. Their books also are seldom published in interactive editions ("press the red button for a simple-English gloss"). There are some academic conventions being assumed here, though not all the issues you raise involve them. Since this is a paraphrase rather than a direct quote, perhaps re-examination of the source is in order, in the hope of finding a clearer way of saying the same things.
 * I agree that opposing "large-scale" to "surface-level" is illogical. If the source permits it, this should probably be amended to "large-scale (as opposed to small-scale) meter", though that is just the teensiest bit tautological. The quotation from Neal immediately following this sentence in the article appears intended to make the meaning clear: "Hypermeter is meter, with all its inherent characteristics, at the level where measures act as beats". Does this not make things plain enough?
 * Your second point is actually identical to the first, and emerges from the jargon associated with Schenkerian theory, where things that happen more rapidly are deemed "surface level" whereas slower events incorporating those "surface" elements are deemed "more background" or "structural" factors. "Hypermeasures" are not quite the same thing as "hypermeter", but the terminology concocted by Cone is not entirely satisfactory, and that phrase could certainly be improved without doing violation to the source.
 * Finally, I do not see in that passage any "proposition that hypermetric spans consist (entirely) of hyperbeats". Of course they contain subordinate ("surface-level") metrical downbeats. What am I missing?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Jerome, I'm in broad agreement with your post. A few points: "Hypermeter is large-scale meter (as opposed to surface-level meter) created by hypermeasures which consist of hyperbeats (Stein 2005, 329)" does state that hypermeasures consist of hyperbeats, which many readers will take as exclusive (they consist of nothing else). Better to explain hyperbeats (and their location in a hypermetric span) in a new sentence? I'm well aware of the Schenkerian notion of surface. I'll add a reference to the brief discussion of Berstein's America—it comes from London (1995). I'm compromised here. I believe the field is a bit confused about the subject, which therefore needs cautious treatment in a WP article (somewhat distanced from and inclusive of the various mind-sets). In the future, an offspring article on hypermetre will be needed—although it might be good to let the subject develop over the next year or two. :-)  Tony   (talk)  03:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Empty hyperbeat measures, then? Well, people will assume the most unlikely things, especially where music theory is concerned. It should not be too difficult to clarify this point, though of course we must be careful not to attribute to our reliable sources things which they do not contain. If they really do say (or may be construed to say) that hypermeasures can exist in the absence of any (nonhyper-)metrical content, then the claim is verified, and the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll check London (2012) ... 2nd ed., which should in any case be updated in the referencing. I'm pretty sure he has a better definition (and so does Moseley (2014). Full with clients right now. Tony   (talk)  09:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Metre (music). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071110021355/http://www.oddtimeobsessed.com:80/ to http://www.oddtimeobsessed.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Measure / bar / a touch of ENGVAR?
An IP just had a little spree of changing "measure" to "bar" which I reverted according to various principles including my personal perception that it was a bit rude. However, I do note that alongside "measure" we do also say "metre". Is this article actually in a specific dialect? Canadian??? (Apologies if this was much-discussed six years ago and I missed the memo.) Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The "memo" began more than six years ago, and will be found above at Spelling, with a follow-up at British spelling priority, revisited. The conclusion (if it may be called that) was to follow British spelling conventions, since that was how the article started. The IP edit was therefore justified, and no doubt there are yet more adjustments that need to be made.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Gosh. Thanks. Worms, can of. Soooo ... I have reverted myself and am now walking rapidly away, hands in pockets, whistling, and studiously looking like I didn't do anything, guvnor. I'm applying for a sabbatical in which to read this Talk page, too! :) And I still think that for the IP Polite would have worked better than Stroppy but hey, what do I know? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked Jerome Kohl about the US terminology a while ago. I think he said that Americans understand "bar" perfectly well in the British sense, and that foreign conductors and the like might well talk in terms of "bar X" to their orchestras in the US, without a hitch. I've also heard that a strict US interpretation of the term "bar" is the graphic vertical line, not the metrical item in terms of its duration (UK). Well ... I'm not one to lay down the rules; I'm pretty sure the article gave the "other" term in parentheses a few times, which should be enough whichever form is chosen. Tony (talk)  06:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Your recollection is accurate, Tony, I did say that, and I still stand by it. How else could the US joke work, about the band that used to play strictly eight-to-the bar, but then added a ninth member and had to find a less crowded pub? This has little enough bearing on the present situation, though, since it is a question of whether US or UK English is the established style her, per WP:ENGVAR. Or perhaps there is a compelling reason to change this article's style to, say, Australian English?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * :-) Well, the article title is BrEng (US meter). I don't mind which it is, but the title suggests consistent UK spelling. To be serious, I think AusEng spelling differs from BrEng only in program vs UK programme. Tony (talk)  09:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hard Day's Night mistake
In Hypermetre, in the "Hard Day's Night" example, shouldn't the word hard be since it is a half note? Squandermania (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Problems in "Hypermetre"
"Hypermetre is large-scale metre (as opposed to surface-level metre) created by hypermeasures, which consist of hyperbeats (Stein 2005, 329). "Hypermeter is meter, with all its inherent characteristics, at the level where bars act as beats" (Neal 2000, 115). For example, the four-bar hyperbar is the prototypical structure for country music, in and against which country songs work (Neal 2000, 115). In some styles, two- and four-bar hypermetres are common."


 * First sentence: so ... hypermeasures aren't created on the musical surface? But beat-slots are? See Love 2015 (MTO and JBM) for how this may not be right.
 * Hypermeasures consist solely of hyperbeats? That's not a likely meaning of that wording.
 * Why "For example", coming after the previous proposition? And so specific, right at the top—why not just make the final statement, which is perfectly good in the intro paragraph? BUT ... stylistic scope needs to be defined: we're not talking Gregorian chant or Messiaen here, are we. Or Australian Indigenous music.

Neal gets a good going over as a ref. But why?

Neal, Jocelyn (2000). "Songwriter's Signature, Artist's Imprint: The Metric Structure of a Country Song". In Wolfe, Charles K.; Akenson, James E. Country Music Annual 2000. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-0989-2.

It's very narrowly scoped. London 2004/2012, Temperley, and many others are more balanced. Rothstein isn't even mentioned in the whole article. Tony (talk)  06:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)