Talk:Quintuple meter

Acceptance to add songs

Can I add the song "Fandango" by band Pain of Salvation? Khullah (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source confirming it is in quintuple meter, yes, of course.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

John Carpenter

I remember seeing the film producer/director John Carpenter being interviewed about some of his movies like Halloween, The Fog, Escape From New York, and The Thing. He was asked about the theme music. He said that his father taught him 5/4 time. He used it in all of those movies. According to him, he was the first to use 5/4 time for movie music. The interview was in the late 90s or early 2000s on United States television. Patnclaire (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That source could use a little refinement, but the article currently lacks any discussion of the use of quintuple meter in film music. If those Carpenter movies really are the first time 5/4 was used in film music, it would certainly be worth noting, if for no other reason than as proof of how conservative the Hollywood industry really is, since they all date from the early 1980s—a good 15 years after the meter started showing up in television music.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The Grudge is misclassified

The Grudge by Tool is essentially all in 5/4 (or arguably parts of it in 5/8), not partially. There's one part where there's like a 3/4 overlaid over 5/8, but basically the whole song is quintuple time. I think the source cited was making a comment about the opening riff sounding like 4/4 to him (dunno what he's smoking, but it's a matter of opinion I guess), rather than saying that only the opening riff was 5/4.

This is all WP:OR, so I will refrain from adding it to the article. But in any case, The Grudge is under the wrong category; it's all in quintuple time. --13.12.254.95 (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, as long as the source indicates otherwise, it will have to stay where it is, but please do try to find a better source and if you succeed, by all means make the correction.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that The Grudge and Rosetta Stoned should switch, because there are several parts of Rosetta stoned in 11/8, 12/8 and 4/4 68.150.111.220 (talk) 05:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. So. I remembered at least a brief interlude where it switches to some other time signature, and I checked some drum tab, which I'm not sure I trust, but it's claiming brief sections in 2/4 and 7/4. In any case, I suppose that technically the "partially in 5/4" is correct, because of a couple of quick sections that aren't. But also, the statement that only the intro is in 5/4 is blatantly, exorbitantly, manifestly wrong. So what I've done is left it in that category, which is supported by the cited source, but erased the comment about only the opening riff being in 5/4 -- because, and I am sorry that this is technically WP:OR, but it is plainly obvious to anyone that the majority of the song is in quintuple time. The source is frankly kinda wrong, but it supports where the song is categorization and the categorization of the song is technically correct. This satisfies Wikipedia policy while also avoids repeating a blatant falsehood. Reasonable compromise? --13.12.254.95 (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Across the Universe is not quintuple time

Just counted it out. 4/4 or 2/4 yes; 5/4 no. Try it yourself. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you checked Fujita et al. (the cited source), to see how they managed to fit it into bars of 5/4?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I just checked a score (not the Fujita one admittedly, but they should all be the same) for Across The Universe and it's definitely 4/4. It drops into 5/4 for a bar for the "across the universe" phrase but then back to 4/4. There's also a bar of 2/4 but that's about it. At most we can say that it contains the odd bar of 5/4 but it's not 5/4 in the way that, say, "Light Flight" is. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A caution: There is absolutely no reason to suppose that different transcriptions will use the same barring, whenever there is any kind of irregularity of meter. That said, it sounds like this may have been put in the list (it was inherited from the List of musical works in unusual time signatures) on the strength of a single bar, or at most a few, and was mistakenly put in the wrong category ("All in 5/4" instead of "Partially in 5/4"). At the moment, the best we can do is put a "disputed" note, with this new score, and wait until someone can confirm that Fujita et al. also has only the stray bar in 5/4 (I don't have this book, nor do I have ready access to it).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Further to the above: Having now looked at this "score" (it is actually a lead sheet), the only 5/4 bar appears to be a 4/4 bar with a pause (fermata) on the last beat. This is difficult to establish without knowing how the accompaniment goes (for example, do the drums and bass keep up a steady pulse through that bar?). I agree that Fujita et al. cannot be that much different and so, even without actually seeing that source, I am moving this title to the "partially in" department (though even there it seems marginal).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Jerome. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure, Derek. Thanks for calling attention to this problem.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Emerson/Emmerson and Tarkus

We have a source described as:

• Emmerson, Keith, Greg Lake, and Carl Palmer. 1980. "Tarkus". [N.p.]: Manticore Music Ltd.

Two questions about this:

• Is this "Emmerson, Keith" (2 m's) the same person as the Keith Emerson (1 m) from Emerson, Lake & Palmer?
• Is "Tarkus" the same thing as the album "Tarkus? Is it normal to refer readers to a recording as the source of information? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

From the format, it would appear to be a citation to a published score. It is certainly not acceptable to reference a recording as a source in such circumstances (after all, there is the famous example of Eugene Ormandy's performances of The Rite of Spring conducted from a score re-written throughout by his assistant conductor in 4/4, so that he would not get lost).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Emphasis on 15/8 inappropriate

Half the lead is devoted to 15/8, and there are two videos to illustrate it right at the top; but this seems (judging from the examples given later in the article) to be relatively rare compared to for instance 5/4, and one of the videos seems not to really be 15/8 anyway but a repeating pattern of five bars in 3/8. Much of the text about 15/8 in the lead seems to be about dividing it into irregular patterns that are not clearly connected to anything being quintuple. After the lead, there is almost no mention of 15/8 in the rest of the article. I suggest that if 15/8 is notable, it should have its own article not titled "Quintuple meter"; and the article called "quintuple meter" should focus primarily on 5/4 (as it does now... only the lead doesn't fit the article). 188.182.238.181 (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You are perfectly correct about the relative scarcity of compound quintuple meters, but that in itself argues against creating a separate article. The main reason it dominates the lede is the necessity of explaining two different ways in which that meter can be subdivided and still be regarded as quintuple (five beats each subdivided into three parts, or three beats each subdivided into five). Irregular divisions of 15/8 or 15/4 of course do not constitute quintuple time, any more than the odd bar of 5/8 or 5/4 establish quintuple meter for an entire piece of music. The last two sentences of the lede make this clear, in case readers may be assuming otherwise. Compound quintuple time can of course be notated as five-bar repeating patterns of 3/8, just as simple quintuple time can be notated a regularly alternating bars of 3 and 2. Perhaps this material should be removed from the lede and placed further down in the article, in a section titled "Compound quintuple meter", or something similar.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Quintuple meter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090413165017/http://www.classicrockmagazine.com:80/news/vintage-pink-floyd-interview-part-1/ to http://www.classicrockmagazine.com/news/vintage-pink-floyd-interview-part-1/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

More examples of modern music in 5/4 time.

I've been keeping track of songs with the 5/4 time signature as I come across them for a while now and I've found plenty that I think this article ought to mention. I have no idea how to edit, so here they are if anyone who knows how to wants to add them. 24.225.50.168 (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Twice as Hard by Interpol - WTF? by OK Go - A Good Man is Hard to Find by Sufjan Stevens - Never by Andrew Huang - In Her Eyes by Josh Groban - Spin the Bottle by Juliana Hatfield - Water by PJ Harvey - From Eden by Hozier Architects of Change by Spencer Nilsen Trust101 (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

There are another 200 or so in the "limbo" file on Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures/Unsourced. They are all waiting for reliable sources to verify the time signature. The 5/4 signature is of course fairly common, as this article makes clear, though the almost total saturation of popular music with 4/4 time might make it seem worth keeping track of in that context. All you need do to add these songs to the trivia list is find a reliable source verifying the signature. Good luck.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, here's what I could find. You tell me if they're reliable sources.

Twice as Hard by Interpol -

"The band does come together for a great closer with "Twice as Hard," featuring a complex 5/4 time signature"

http://exclaim.ca/music/article/interpol-el_pintor

WTF? by OK Go -

"The song was written in the rarely used 5/4 time signature."

http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=18178

A Good Man is Hard to Find by Sufjan Stevens

"Sufjan Stevens' "A Good Man is Hard to Find" (5/4),"

https://www.tititudorancea.net/z/time_signature.htm

Never by Andrew Huang

"Time signature: 5/4"

http://www.mp3tunes.tk/download?v=McqlxDTsxoA

In Her Eyes by Josh Groban

"Josh Groban's "In Her Eyes" is 5/4 time."

http://allthetropes.wikia.com/wiki/Uncommon_Time

Spin the Bottle by Juliana Hatfield

"Spin the Bottle is in 5/4."

http://ask.metafilter.com/4712/Recommend-musicians-whose-songs-are-in-odd-time-signatures

Water by PJ Harvey

" “Water” returns to 5/4"

https://kamertunesblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/pj-harvey-part-1-thoughts-on-an-artist-the-trio-years/

From Eden by Hozier

"It is in the 5/4 time signature,"

http://entertainmentvoice.com/2014/10/20/irish-new-comer-hoziers-debut-album-shows-maturity-raw-talent/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.50.168 (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Many of these are blogs, which makes them at least doubtful as reliable sources. Some may qualify. However, I think it is worth noting that these nominations for addition have come so hard on the heels of this edit, calling for the trivia list to be trimmed, rather than expanded.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This article has too many examples! Only a handful are necessary to explain what quintuple meter is. The rest belong in a list or category, not here. Tayste (edits) 21:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to make my position clear: I agree entirely. For one thing, despite repeated exclamations to the contrary, quintuple meter is actually quite common in many genres of music. Film and television soundtracks, for example. As a result, listing every possible example becomes a tedious exercise in trivia.

Perhaps a little history would not be out of place. Several years ago, this article (as well as Septuple meter) were split off from the List of musical works in unusual time signatures precisely because quintuple and septuple meters are not so very rare, and consequently were subjects large enough to warrant their own articles. I did not myself make this split, but welcomed it at the time, and have extensively edited both articles ever since. Because they both started their independent lives in this way, the list element has persisted in both articles through inertia. Perhaps the time has come to eliminate this aspect, since the prose sections of both articles is (in my opinion) now substantial. If this seems generally sensible, the only remaining question is what to do with the excessive material: spin it off into a limbo list of its own, or just delete it all.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the obvious action is to move a list of songs into its own article, if you feel like they're inappropriate here. What good could an incomplete list of examples do? The only reason I found the article in the first place was because I was interested in 5/4 time signature, and wanted to find every modern song that I could that used it. Why would you want to delete the examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.50.168 (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The simple answer to your last question is, "Because it contributes nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject", to paraphrase Tayste's comment, above. To your other question, I might counter with another: "What good could a complete list of examples do?" Have you by chance checked the above-mentioned Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures/Unsourced? Even that represents only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. While it is undoubtedly true that a list of popular songs in 4/4 time would be much larger than a list of quintuple-meter popular songs, the same would be true for most other meters. Do you seriously support the idea that there should be complete lists of pieces in, say, 6/8 time or 3/4 time? If not, then why is 5/4 so special?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quintuple meter. 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/20080224011342/http://www.jmignited.com/akeboshi.php to http://www.jmignited.com/akeboshi.php

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wild Woods from Mario Kart 8 is in 5/4

…But i'm not sure how citations works, and it'll probably get deleted. So, can someone who is good at Wikipedia please add it? There's an official video on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZsTeBwBYoQ&t=5s), and it is 200 BPM :) Teekenny's new wikipedia account (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this especially notable and, if so, why? There is already a banner on the "also-ran" section reading, in part, "This section may contain excessive, poor, irrelevant, or self-sourcing examples. Please improve the article by adding more descriptive text and removing less pertinent examples." Assuming that there are good reasons for adding "Wild Woods from Mario Kart 8", these should be explained in the prose section, together with one or more reliable sources verifying them. For example, a paragraph in a book about whatever genre we are speaking of, that not only mentions 5/4 time, but also explains why this particular example stands out in historical or artistic importance. Since quintuple meter is not particularly unusual, there really is no point in compiling a list of every insignificant piece that just happens to have five beats to the bar. What is really needed at this point is weeding out the less significant examples in that trivia list, and incorporating the most important ones into the article's text, where their notability can be described in some detail.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Dude, I got you covered. I just found sheet music, and I’m adding it right now. Also, Jerome Kohl, to answer your question, there isn’t a lot of video game music here (pretty much none), so I think it would be cool if someone were to add some more variety to this list. Pjcskik19 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself from two-and-a-half years, ago, "What is really needed at this point is weeding out the less significant examples in that trivia list, and incorporating the most important ones into the article's text ...". If video-game music is really a distinct genre, important enough to be treated on its own, it is especially important to put something into the main text of the article explaining this, and not simply bury an example or two in the trivia list at the end.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

SF comments

Just as an FYI, the statement that a German zweifacher (under European folk music) is in 5 is erroneous (in the general case). A zweifacher does alternate 2 (pivot step) and 3 (waltz step), but not necessary in that order. E.g., the one zweifacher I can hum is primarily 3322 (though it does have a section in 32) and they can get much more complex than that. I don't know the reference (I suspect a statement in it was misinterpreted /overgeneralized), and I don't have any other references, so I'm not going attempt to change it.

Finney1234 (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed you are correct. The source is somewhat ambiguous, reading "the most interesting of these dances is the Kochersberger Tanz, which is mentioned by Reicha and other musical theorists on account of its peculiar rhythm. According to Reicha's notation it is in 5/8 time. Perhaps it would have been as correctly written in 3/8 and 2/8 alternately, like Der Zwiefache, or Gerad und Ungerad ("Even and Uneven"), of the villagers in the Upper Palatinate of Bavaria, to which it bears altogether a strong resemblance." I have added a link to an online edition of the source, in case that may be of some assistance.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Any change I would make would be partially based on "original research" (that is, my acquired knowledge), so I'm not going to touch it (in spite of the fact it's an error). Also, feel free to back out my undocumented Balkan reference to Ellis. You might also consider removing the word "fast" in my paidushko reference; although it is correct and relevant (most of the other 5's are slow tempo, so the fast tempo of the paidushko is interesting: see, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB5V-SO8BdI), Rice does not actually use the word "fast" (I inserted it intentionally). Boris Kremenliev's "Bulgarian-Macedonian Folk Music" might include metronome speeds, but my copy is in storage. Frank Zappa frequently did fast 5's (e.g., "Flower Punk" is partly in 5, and Zappa frequently would hand signal changes to 5 in performance), but I'm not motivated to chase down references.Finney1234 (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Don Ellis Dickert reference refers to the Indian or Middle Eastern or both. Peter Lavezolli's "The Dawn of Indian Music in the West" (pp 300-305) talks extensively about Ellis' background in Indian music, and might be a useful reference (it doesn't mention either Middle Eastern or Balkan).

As a point of interest, We 5's "Small World" from 1965 is probably the first western pop song in 5. Any idiot could tell it's in 5 :-), but I have no reference. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f4RsYkzsK0. I also wouldn't count it as a "rock" song (folk-jazz, Swingle-Singers-like).

Finney1234 (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there any on-line access to Fenlon's dissertation on Ellis? That would almost certainly talk about the Bulgarian connection (e.g., Ellis' contact with Milcho Leviev).

Finney1234 (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about online access, but I have Fenlon's dissertation and, of course, it does verify the Bulgarian connection. However, this does not actually have any bearing on Ellis's use of quintuple meter, since "Bulgarian Bulge" is in 33/8 time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The sentence I edited is a very general one, not specific to Quintuple Meter: "Starting in 1964, the trumpeter and band leader Don Ellis sought to fuse traditional big-band styles with rhythms borrowed from Indian, Near Eastern music,[112] and Balkan music.". FWIW, I suspect "Near Eastern" specifically refers to Turkish, as I don't think Arabic music is strong on asymmetric rhythms. Based on Lavezolli, the primary influence in the year 1964 proper was Indian music (and Brubeck), neither Middle-Eastern nor Balkan. Finney1234 (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, quite, but the passage continues: "One of his largest works, for example, Variations for Trumpet, is divided into six sections with meters including ⁵
₄, ⁹
₄, ⁷
₄, and ³²
₈.[113] Two other Ellis compositions are entirely in ⁵
₄ time: 'Indian Lady' and '5/4 Getaway'.[114]" As far as I am aware, there is no evidence of Balkan influence in Ellis's music as early as 1964, and the subject of this article is, after all, Quintuple meter. It seems to me that getting into other uneven meters would be drifting away from the present subject. As for the issue of Turkish vs other "Near Eastern" music, the cited source is not that specific. If you know of one that is, by all means add it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the passage from Dickow 2002 (not "Dickert") reads: "However, he generally avoided a radical free-form style, seeking instead to infuse traditional big-band styles with novel or exotic influences, particularly in his use from 1964 of Indian and Near Eastern rhythms." Thanks for the "heads up" on the citation that fails to confirm a fast tempo. It doesn't seem like a point worth squabbling over but, as you say, it is technically not referenced. This business of "reliable sources" can get very interesting when it comes to claims of "firstness". I cannot think how many cases I have come across (one went into a discography I added to a Wikipedia article just a week or so ago) where such claims turn out to be wildly inaccurate. I remember many years ago (in fact, just about the time Don Ellis was making such a splash with "Bulgarian Bulge") there was an LP released with four pieces on it, proclaiming in large letters on its cover that all four were "world premiere recordings". The critics had a lot of fun listing the the several earlier recordings that had been released of each piece, though it was probably true that they had not all appeared together on the same album previously.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I was curious about just what the Dickow reference said. The phrasing leaves open the possibility (likely, in my opinion, though I don't know Ellis' early repertoire) that Ellis didn't actually listen to or study Near Eastern (or Balkan) music in 1964, but just borrowed a rhythm or two (e.g., the 9 in Blue Rondo a la Turk). Even that may be referred to by Dickow as "Near Eastern" solely because of "a la Turk" in the name, which Brubeck did (presumeably) as a play on "alla Turca". So there may be no real "Near Eastern" influence on Ellis either. Clearly Ellis studied Indian music and rhythms quite seriously (see the detail in Lavezolli, which is a very cool book, if you're interested in Indian music). FWIW, some 1966 recordings of the Hindustani Jazz Sextet are on Youtube.

It would be interesting to see what Fenlon says about it (the direct musical/historical early influences on Ellis, e.g., what records he owned in 1964).

Note that Wikipedia does not actually require that all information be referenced, only that a reference exist (see the interesting second paragraph in Wikipedia:No_original_research. So leaving in "fast" is defensible, because in my (finite) wisdom I'm confident that a reference exists (sort of like an Non-constructive (existence) proof). Finney1234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. Until some busy-body challenges the claim, of course.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to put this on the talk page as a placeholder, since I don't have a reference, but it's highly relevant, and should be added if a reference ever shows up. In 1953, Moondog released a song called "Be A Hobo", which is clearly in 5 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06kTk3CgUX8) (so: predating Take 5 by 5 or so years). Interestingly, it looks like there's also a cover version with Steve Reich and Terry Riley. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/records/n3q8qx).

Finney1234 (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Man from UNCLE theme is in 4:4

I'll check the different theme versions (as the arrangement changed from time to time) but I'm really sure that all versions were in plain old 4:4. The similarity with Lalo Schifrin's Mission Impossible theme was the empgasis on the last two beats of each bar.

MI: dum dum dah dah where the dums are 1.5 beats and the dahs are one beat UNCLE: duh duh duh duh all equal. 2001:388:6080:109:9C1C:569A:5774:6B31 (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, "duh duh duh duh" does sound all equal to me, but are you sure there isn't a fifth "duh" in there? ;-) The cited source says: "During U.N.C.L.E.'s 1964–1968 run, Hugo Montenegro, RCA's go-to-guy for orchestral pop, recorded two LPs featuring music from the show, including compositions by Jerry Goldsmith, Morton Stevens, Walter Scarf, Lalo Schifrin and others. ... It wasn't until 2002 that Film Score Monthly released the first of three double-CD volumes of original music from The Man from U.N.C.L.E., followed by a single-CD volume of music from the eight Man from U.N.C.L.E. movies that repackaged two-part TV episodes for the international market. These volumes feature dynamic jazz-influenced themes and cues by the aforementioned artists. ... Credit for the main theme goes to Goldsmith, who had already become a top-flight composer on the Hollywood scene, Using a speedy 5/4 rhythm, Goldsmith combined militaristic percussion with the brass attacking the theme's stealthy melody." It is always possible that Spencer got it wrong, and McFarland is not the first publisher I would rely on for editorial oversight, but this is a fairly clear issue of an allegedly reliable source coming up against a contrary claim. What is really needed here is another reliable source that at least verifies the opposing view, and preferably one that definitively refutes it (such as published sheet music certified as being the original version). —Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Rite of Spring

I don't see the excerpt from The Rite of Spring in my score. It looks like Stravinsky split the 5/8 bar into two bars when he revised it. There is no real quintuple feel to this passage anyway; it's really 3+2+3 in the passage shown. So, I think we should delete it. Squandermania (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

20th Century section is very long

The 20th Century section is quite long. I don't think that listing off lots of examples of 5/4 or 5/8 is particularly informative. I think we could at the very least trim out examples of pieces that have isolated bars in quintuple meters and focus on pieces that are in quintuple meter or have major sections in quintuple meter. Squandermania (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably too long. However, since I wrote most of that section myself, I find it hard to see what should be cut, so I am going to have to ask for your help here. As far as I can see, there is only one paragraph that your suggestion of cutting out examples with just isolated bars of quintuple meter, and that is the one beginning with "So many other composers followed Stravinsky's example ...". I suppose it could be cut to just the opening sentence, ending with the citation after "unremarkable from the 1920s onward." Should the removed examples then be put into a "miscellaneous jumble" list at the end, like the current one listing pop songs, or just omitted silently?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

On further examination, the section on 19th-century music is just about as long as the one on 20th-century music. Should we not be scrutinizing that, as well? Also, could I ask your help with that Lilypond example from Steve Reich? The is a huge white space before the first note, and the five eighth notes are then crowded together, with the final barline too close to the last note. The older example had a better layout, whatever its other shortcomings may have been.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right: the "So many other composers followed Stravinsky's example ..." paragraph was really what I was looking at. I don't think talking about isolated bars in specific pieces is helpful at all; I'd rather just delete them. Also, I added a section to the talk page above about the Rite of Spring example – it looks like Stravinsky later rebarred the section. Overall, much of the 19th and 20th century sections just seem like lists. To me, the best solution would be to only talk about the most notable examples and show the rest as a list.

The space in the Steve Reich example is just there because I hid the time signature to match the image. I don't know the original score – should it have 5/8 notated? Squandermania (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, good. I agree that those examples are not helpful. The sentence about the occasional use of quintuple metre being unremarkable is sufficient. It has been a while since I last saw the Reich score, but I am fairly certain that there is no time signature, just two statements of that five-quaver pattern within a single bar. Take a look at the layout of the earlier version of the example and see if you can coax Lilypond into looking more like that.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Barber's string quartet is in sources

and the finale of his piano concerto might be added as well. (Also: the works- generally earlier than Barber, though not all- in IMSLP's Quintuple-time category have at least substantial sections in quintuple time.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 04:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Bahlawan

@Jerome Kohl: I added song Bahlawan by Mira Awad, and you reverted my edit saying that Youtube is not a reliable source. In that video, the author herself says that she used 5/8 in the song. Why is that not reliable? In this Facebook post, the author confirms that it's 5/8, and this blog post also mentions it. Are these acceptable as sources? Heitordp (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I did not check the video in question, my apologies. In 99 out of 100 cases, these YouTube links are merely to performances of the piece, without any verification of the meter employed. Still, YouTube videos are often self-published, and YouTube is always suspect for copyright violation. I would say that the blog post would qualify under WP:SELFSOURCE, and perhaps the Facebook post, as well, if the precautions in WP:FACEBOOK are taken into account. Please check these links and reinstate the song with the source(s) you feel are the most defensible.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for citing the Wikipedia rules. I believe that self-published sources qualify in this case as the information is about the author's own activity, and that the Facebook post is allowed because the author's username is marked as authentic. I'll also cite this page from the author's official website, which contains the video mentioning the meter and a transcript. Heitordp (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That accords with my understanding of the guidelines. You're welcome, and have fun editing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Correction

The current version of this article contains this passage:

the second movement of Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6 in B minor, "Pathétique", Op. 74 (1893)[60] (described by one author as the very first example of quintuple meter in Western classical music)

Shouldn't the word "inaccurately" be added before "described as one author," since there are clearly numerous examples of quintuple meter in Western classical music prior to Tchaikovsky? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Sadness is a cold banana!

'Happiness is a warm gun' does not belong in the 'Examples in popular music' list! Although parts may be possible to be counted in 5/4 it actually would violate all sense of musical phrasing. Yes, you can count 5 + 5 instead of 4 + 4 + 2. And even a renowned publisher like Hal Leonard may, for practical reasons, decide to notate that part in 5/4 - many years after the song was recorded, probably without any sheet material. Nevertheless, great portions of the song definitely are not in 5/4, which would still qualify to make the 'Partially in quintuple time' list. But I don't think so. Even the Wikipedia Article on that specific 'Beatles' song doesn't mention 5/4 (or 5/8 for that matter) in it's long list of different meters the song allegedly makes use of. I know Wikipedia is quite officially not a reliable source in Wikipedia's own eyes - for a variety of very good reasons. And my opinion or musical analysis is 'original research' at best and thus not viable. Otherwise, I'd delete the entry myself at once. So, just take it as a hint, that something is 'fishy' here... One caveat: It is technically possible to notate any given song in ANY musical meter. That's one of the reasons why western standard notation once was / has been so successful on a global scale. And probably the reason why the song gives to various interpretations. But notation, actually, is supposed and expected to be sensible and supportive of the musical thought at hand by musicians. Yes, you can notate 'Mary has a little lamb' in 17/8, which would probably render it halfways unplayable even for people familiar with the song. Is that what Fujita, Hagino, Kubo, and Sato (the source) did in 1993? Maybe. Oh, and by the way, I own a copy of 'The Beatles - All Songs 1962-1974' by Northern Songs Ltd. which, according to Wikipedia "[...] was a limited company founded in 1963, by music publisher Dick James, artist manager Brian Epstein, and songwriters John Lennon and Paul McCartney of the Beatles, to publish songs written by Lennon and McCartney." I'm quite sure, I'm not allowed to upload a copy here for legal reasons. Anyways, NO 5/4 or 5/8. Plain 4/4 with sections of 3/4 'interspersed'. It's weird how much 'agenda pushing' I found, researching this song. To any practicing musician, especially, but not excclusively, MoMs, classical or jazz, who are at least familiar with some odd meter playing, that song's meter(s)/sensible time signature(s) and structure probably is very obvious and simple. It seems to be the musicologists and music journalists (or wannabees, sorry) who try to complicate matters by building complex belief systems around the alleged complexity and hidden meaning of their beloved band's songs. Please take a look at the 'Fujita, Hagino, Kubo, and Sato' score/sheet again to verify you haven't misread the source. But then throw it out, anyways, 'cause it's wrong! (Last part is supposed to be fun! Why are there no Emojis in the tool bar?) Korinthus (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)