Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irrational rhythm


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   merge to Tuplet. Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrational rhythm

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Information already covered in the more-likely-to-be-searched-for Tuplet. Georgia guy (talk) 15:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Easy decision. Put one in the other or vice versa. Tuplet seems the more encyclopaedic, so move all the info not already covered there from this article. Rafablu88  17:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. I agree it is an easy decision, the topics are identical under different names. However, I disagree on the direction of merge, for two reasons.
 * First, "Irrational rhythm" is by far the most highly developed article (several times the size of "Tuplet").
 * Second, I disagree that "tuplet" is more likely to be searched, since it is an informal (and grammatically incorrect) term, and therefore less encyclopaedic, than "Irrational rhythm". The main suffix (as found in the OED) is "-tuple", rather than "-tuplet", and occurs "With preceding algebraic symbol", as in "n-tuplet", where n represents an integer or other, more complex expression. The forms are, for example, "8-tuplet", "9-tuplet", etc., pronounced "eight-tuplet", "nine-tuplet", etc. While these quasi-mathematical forms are occasionally heard, especially for numbers larger than nine (I cannot recall ever hearing "three-tuplet" or "eight-tuplet", for example), the traditional and usual musical terms, derived from Latin, have stems followed not by "-tuplet" but by "-(up)let", which is why we have "triplet" rather than "triplatuplet", "quadruplet" rather than "quadratuplet", "nonuplet", "decuplet", and "undecuplet" rather than "nontuplet", "dectuplet", and "undectuplet". These usual forms are not currently explained in the "Tuplet" article, where the further inaccuracies "Previously, there was no general term for these individual tuplets" (previously to when? "Irrational rhythms" are found in the literature from before the middle of the 19th century, whereas the "tuplet" terminology only emerges … when?The OED does not acknowledge the musical borrowing at all, though it is my impression that it was not used before the 1960s), and "the alternative modern term of 'irrational rhythm' is a misnomer" (only a misnomer if the mathematical definition is assumed; the term has been in general musical use, as well as in Classical prosody, for over a century, to describe "a syllable having a metrical value not corresponding to its actual time-value, or of a metrical foot containing such a syllable", or any rhythmic "relation which cannot be measured by the [common counting] unit", according to the OED). These positions would be less awkward to explain in the context of "Irrational rhythm" than "Tuplet".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The merge direction doesn't really matter (but nice argument anyway). We can just rename the page if need be. My main worry is that we end up deleting this abruptly and lose info. Rafablu88  20:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Is there such a thing as an 8-tuplet in music?? The sequence of fractions of a beat, as defined in x/4 time signatures, is:


 * Quarter note
 * 2 eighth notes
 * 3 eighth note triplets
 * 4 sixteenth notes
 * 5 sixteenth quintuplets
 * 6 sixteenth sextuplets
 * 7 sixteenth septuplets
 * 8 thirty-second notes (no tuplet here)

Note that the above sequence can be converted to a similar sequence in x/2 or x/8 time signatures by changing the note names appropriately (e.g. in the x/2 time signatures it starts half note, 2 quarter notes, 3 quarter note triplets.)

So how is an "8-tuplet" valid?? Any different sequence that features such a thing?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never heard the term "eight-tuplet", as I said above, and even the normal term "octuplet" is rare in this context, since it is one of the ordinary subdivisions of the beat in simple meters. However, as with the related terms "duplet" and "quadruplet", octuplets may occur in compound meters, such as 6/8 or, more especially 9/8. Duplets replace the ordinary threefold primary subdivisions of the beat in these meters (eighth notes), and quadruplets replace the sixfold secondary level of subdivision (sixteenth notes). In 9/8 time, a change to division of the entire bar into eight parts would be called "octuplets" (never "eight-tuplets", in my experience).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now, with 9/8, the eighth note is the beat, and so a division of the beat would be 2 sixteenth notes. What's the difference between what this sentence says and what you mean when you talk about duplets?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that is not correct. In 9/8 meter the dotted quarter is the beat, so the primary division of the beat is at the eighth-note level. Duplets in this context divide the beat into halves instead of the normal thirds, so the result looks like ordinary 3/4 time, which is easier on the eye than the alternative of writing strings of dotted eight notes. The secondary level of subdivision in 9/8 time is the sixteenth note, and there are six per beat. Quadruplets dividing the beat into four equal parts (the equivalent of sixteenth notes in 3/4 time) may be viewed either with respect to the primary subdivision, in which case they replace three original units with four, or with respect to the secondary subdivisions, in which case they replace six with four (which could alternatively be written as twelve dotted-sixteenths to the bar, but this would be eye-splitting). The notational convention for duplets, quadruplets, etc. is to regard them as "reverting" to simple time, so that the beat is divided into eighth-note duplets or sixteenth-note quadruplets in 9/8 time—therefore fewer occurrences of a note value than in the normal metrical divisions. This is opposite to the normal procedure for triplets, quintuplets, etc., where extra units are crowded into the normal space: three eighth-note triplets in the place of two eighth notes, seven sixteenth-note septuplets in place of four sixteenths, and so on. The example I gave, however, is more complicated, since it supposes an entire bar of 9/8 meter will be temporarily divided into what amounts to 4/4 time. As a result, in order to avoid using octuplet notation, each of the three beats of 9/8 would have to be divided at the tertiary level of thirty-second notes, in order that each of the eight equal divisions of the bar could be represented by a dotted thirty-second. However, at this level the only note that would fall on the original beats (three to a bar) would be the downbeat of each bar, and the speed of the subdivisions would be far beyond human capability to count. This is one reason why these proportional divisions (including the simpler examples) are called "irrational".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merger any accurate information to Tuplet, as per Rafablu88  above --Bejnar (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.