Talk:Time signature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Meter vs. Time Signature

Much of this material seems to duplicate what's in the article on Meter. Although musicians use the terms Meter and Time signature pretty much interchangeably, in an encyclopedia we should take more care to use terms precisely. I propose that this article should focus exclusively on the notational aspects of time signature (perhaps expanded to include Renaissance indications of metric proportions, and give notated examples of things like 3+2/8 and extra-long signatures) and move whatever seems appropriate to the Meter article. I'd move to the Meter article:

  • examples of various time signature (really meters)
  • "standard time signatures" (again, really meters)
  • all discussion of duple/triple, simple/compound (some of this is already present in the Meter article).
Wahoofive 19:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Disagree. This article should be useful and informative, not scientifically succinct. Hyacinth 21:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that if you moved the examples of various and standard time signatures to metre (music) you would have someone at Talk:Metre (music) saying they belong back in "Time signature". I think this article requires a short explination of what time signatures indicate (duple/triple & simple/compound) with a link to a more full explination at "Metre (music)". Hyacinth 17:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Still could use expansion for Renaissance versions, with links to topics such as Mensuration, Proportions, and the like. Wahoofive 07:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That sounds great. Hyacinth 17:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article is really difficult to understand

This article is really really dense and tough to read for someone unfamiliar with music theory like me. Just saying. Scott Ritchie 02:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Time signatures might be hard to understand at all without some rudimentary grasp of basic theory concepts (measures/note values/etc)... TrbleClef 08:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I guess the introduction could stand to have some more links. Here was what I was thinking when I read it again:

The time signature (also known as "meter signature") is a notational device used in Western musical notation to specify how many beats are in each bar and which note value (minim, crotchet, quaver, and so on) constitutes one beat. Time signatures may indicate meter, but do not determine it."

"beats in each bar" - what does that mean? What is a note value?

Most time signatures comprise two numbers, one above the other. In text (as in this article), time signatures may be written in the manner of a fraction: the example shown at right can be written 3/4.

What do these two numbers mean? What's the difference between the top and bottom?

In a musical score, the time signature appears at the beginning of the piece, immediately following the key signature (or immediately following the clef if there is no key signature). A mid-score time signature, usually immediately following a barline, indicates a change of meter."

This sentence makes sense - while I don't quite get what it means (can't read music), I do know where to look for more information. This isn't the case with the first two sentences - I got stumped and confused about where to learn more. Scott Ritchie 22:42, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Regarding note value, that article is linked. Would that not be an appropriate place to learn about note value if one doesn't already know them? Regarding the top/bottom number issue, that is discussed farther down in the article because the numbers mean different things in simple and complex meters. I agree that it is a bit unobvious, though.
Again, without some basic theory knowledge it is hard to quickly understand the concepts of the time signature... but that's why those articles are linked, right? TrbleClef 23:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as another non-musician, I'd find it really helpful to hear examples. Reading the linked articles made the theory clearer, but didn't help me to understand what this really means. This is especially true for sections that talk about theoretically equivalent time signatures that are practically different (e.g., the "rewriting meters" section). It need not be anything fancy; I'm sure a musician explaining this in person would do a little humming or table-thumping, and that would be plenty for me. --William Pietri 17:17, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Say, I mentioned my befuddlement on this topic to my girlfiend, who indeed did do some humming and knee-thumping. She also found this article, which has some nice examples, which made things a lot clearer to me. --William Pietri 05:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
It's a little clearer, perhaps, but also inaccurate. TrbleClef 06:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for sharper focus

I agree with what's been said, that there is serious crossover between this and the Meter article and that this article, while well-intentioned, is unwieldy. (Perhaps the Irregular Time Signatures should be moved to a new article, with cross-references?)

For clarity, the main cross-references in Time Signature should be to BEAT and NOTE VALUE. It should confine itself to simple and compound time, and to top and bottom figures in notation.

Additionally it's misleading to call a time signature a "fraction" , even if you're referring to them "in text". It encourages those who think 3/4 means "three-quarters of a beat"....FClef 02:34, 07 Sep 2005 (GMT)

It's a fraction of a whole note, more or less. But as for your main point, I don't think this article is too long, but it does need to stay focused on the time signature, an element of notation. If you're going to eliminate something, "Rewriting meters" would be a good place to start, although one could argue that it's explaining the limitations of the notation, it just doesn't do it well (plus it's a really theoretical item which belongs lower down). I strongly disagree that we should move more complex topics to other articles. They're lower down in the article for a reason, so that the basic stuff is at the top. 7/4 isn't any less a time signature than 3/4, even if it's used less often. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Wahoofive. I take some of your points. I've re-formatted the headings of this article while basically keeping the copy as is (some minimal changes made, esp. in paragraphing). Hopefully this not only makes the article easier to read, but also throws into sharper relief the areas where it SERIOUSLY overlaps with Meter. This may make jettisoning or moving some of that material a less burdensome task. And by the way, I love the history.

It is lamentable that the Meter article talks of "simple metre" and "common metre" rather thatn simple and compound TIME. This should be standardized, n'est-ce pas?

I find the explanation of compound time befuddling for those lacking theoretical background. I do feel that it is easier to think of the time signatures as: top figure = no. of beats per meaure and bottom figure = the beat unit.

I think that this should be retained for both simple and compound time. The explanation of compound time with the dividing and multiplying is best dealt with in a subsection immediately following - with a cross reference to NOTE VALUES. FClef 8 September 2005 03:39 (GMT)

Overall, I think your changes are good. There certainly is room for improvement in the "compound" explanation. I don't think it will be possible to completely separate "time signature" from "meter" since they're pretty closely related. It's inevitable that there will be some overlap in the articles. "simple time" and "compound time" are less often used, at least where I live, and "time" is so ambiguous I'm not sure that would help. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compound meter and other issues

Hi Wahoofive. Thanks for your input. Yes, compound time is used where I live, i.e. in the United Kingdom, and so I will eventually work on some redirections, etc. I hope to improve the "compound" explanation, as and when, so please keep an eye open. This will be done with cross-references to other entries re time.

Meanwhile, taking your point about "rewriting meters", I agree this could certainly stand removal or re-siting lower down. However I am a newcomer to this page and have not the guts to do so. Are you planning anything?

Perhaps actually this can be held in abeyance for the moment: I have a certain number of edits and clarification in mind to other entries re time. These in turn will have some redirections and further cross-refs. Plus I intend to write a short new article. I hope I can count on your support  :o) and will give you a shout as I do my extra bits. FClef 8 September 2005 20:12 (GMT)

Hi Wahoofive and other contributors. Courtesy submit to peers of my proposed copy to replace current copy on compound time. I have retained the best of the previously existing copy and tried to clarify. Feed back, please! (FYI I am a working musician: piano entertainer, vocal coach and musical theatre repetiteur.)


Compound time signatures are distinguished by an upper number which is 6 or above and a multiple of three (most commonly 6, 9, or 12). The most common lower number in a compound time signature is 8, representing the quaver note value.

Unlike simple time, however, compound time uses a dotted note for the beat unit. This is the root of the name “compound” time. The beat is a compound of a note value plus a dot. Consequently, the upper and lower numbers in compound time signatures do not represent the number of beats per measure and the beat unit.

Subheading: Interpreting compound time signatures. The upper and lower numbers in compound time signatures need to be factored as follows:

To determine the number of beats per measure divide the upper number by three. For example, in 6/8, there are 2 beats per measure (because 6 divided by 3 equals 2). So the pulse for the piece is 1-2, 1-2, 1-2, etc.

To identify the “beat unit” (i.e. which type of note represents ONE beat), multiply the note value represented by the lower number by three. For example, in 6/8, the lower number (8) represents an eighth-note (or quaver). Multiplying that note value by three gives a beat unit of a dotted quarter-note. (i.e., 3 quavers).

The compound time signatures 6/8 , 9/8 and 12/8 denote two, three and four x dotted quarter-note beats per bar respectively.

FClef 9 September 2005 23:12 (GMT)

This looks great. Be bold! The only thing I'd suggest changing is To identify the “beat unit” (i.e. which type of note represents ONE beat), multiply the note value represented by the lower number by three. You used the word divide in the previous paragraph in a mathematical sense, so multiply by 3 is going to lead someone to think 8x3=24. See if you can find a clearer way to phrase it. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, there are pieces in 6/8 which have eighth-note beats, although that's less common. The concept of beat gets more slippery the more closely you look at it. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed! And thanks for encouragement. I shall type this up on my return to London on Sunday. Meanwhile, re your multiplication point, I'm energetically thinking of an alternative. by the way, I suggest slightly tightening the explanation of simple time to be consistent with compound. (not adding to it substantially.)

I will be using the term simple and compound meter as per our previous discussion on this.FClef 10 September 2005 03:31 (GMT)

Actually, whoops - cancel my last remark. I will retain the terms simple and compound time as the article and indeed the section heading are brimming with it.FClef 10 September 2005 03:36 (GMT)

Hi Wahoofive. It's been a big couple of days here, what with the Last Night of the Proms and also England regaining the Ashes in cricket (look up the Ashes in Wikipedia) for the first time in 18 yrs. I have done my edit of Compound Time.

There are some problems, as follows: 1. There were three stray paragraphs remaining unheaded at the bottom of the section on Simple and Compound Time.

  • I have moved the first one into a new sub-sub-section, Notational Variations in Simple Time.
  • The second paragraph really should go up at the head of the Simple and Compound Time section as it is a blanket remark. The only problem is that upper and lower numbers in time signatures are explained BELOW, in the Simple time subsection.
  • The third paragraph is a problem in terms of organisation.

Have you any thoughts - or could you please take swift action to remedy these probs.

2. It occurs to me that the terms upper and lower numbers could be interpreted as greater and smaller, respectively. So people might think that in 6/8, 8 is the upper number.

  • Should we rename these "top" and "bottom" numbers throughout the whole article?
  • Should you write some brilliant sentence after your fraction remark at the outset of the article, for the avoidance of doubt?

3. Is a caveat needed before Simple and Compound Time referring people to read sections on beat and note value?

4. Regarding your misgivings about the term "multiplying", it was in the original. I hope that the cross-referencing and use of emphasis in the paragraph will eliminate ambiguity.

And finally, I think I have been somewhat misleading in signing myself as FClef, for I am essentially a GClef 12 September 2005 00:54 (GMT)

Hi Wahoofive. I have solved problem no. 1 by some re-jigging. Please take a look. Please feel free to take action on 2 and 3. Should we use the terms top and bottom figure? (for my point 2) Actually, I think, reading the article, it's now pretty clear.GClef 12 September 2005 14:10 (GMT)

[edit] Proposed Move of "Stress and Meter" section

I suggest we move the entire section called "Stress and Meter" all the way to the bottom, even below the historical stuff. It's related to time signatures, but is subsidiary to content about the notational device, which is the principal subject of the article. I'd be happy to hear other editors' comments on this proposal. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Good idea - please do! Your remarks in the second sentence would make an good introductory blast to that section. I feel it needs saying in the Time Signatures article. FClef 8 September 2005 22:12 (GMT)

[edit] Simple Time and Compound Time - redirects

Hi Wahoofive. As part of ongoing housekeeping, I have redirected the term Simple Time to Simple Metre, and Compound Time to Compound Metre. This will assist the legions of readers who normally use the terms Simple Time and Compound Time.

Incidentally, the articles on these topics are stubs and could do with clarification. (NOT expansion, IMHO - they are best kept short  :o) ) FClef 8 September 2005 22:54 (GMT)

URGENT ATTENTION Wahoofive. The explanations now provided under Simple and Compound Time Signatures possibly render these two articles redundant - or do they?

Should the explanations under Simple and Compound Time Signatures be shortened to a bare minimum and the longer accounts put into these two stub articles?

or should the stubs be deleted and the terms Simple Time, Simple Metre/meter and the Compound equivalents REDIRECTED to Time Signatures? best wishes, with my gender-changed name now, your comrade in arms GClef 13 September 2005 14:10 (GMT)

As a person who deals with boys' choirs periodically, I can't see the GClef as a different gender from the F clef, but whatever. Not to mention that we tenors sing from the G clef.
I think it would make more sense for those terms to redirect to Metre (music), which drastically needs a rewrite as well.
Thanks for all your time working on this. In the future, if you want to address a note directly to me, put it on my user talk page rather than an article talk page. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interpreting compound time signatures

To the person who's putting in the (so far) confused and confusing material on interpreting compound time signatures, particularly the matter of counting 6/8 as a simple meter: I challenge you on your assertion that this signature in simple meter would be counted "1 & 2 & ..." (in other words, counting in sixteenths). In simple meter, it would simply be counted with one syllable per eighth note, or just "1 2 3 4 5 6". Unless I'm really missing something here. Other opinions? ILike2BeAnonymous 19:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. The confusion arises due to the fact that the simple meter 6/8 and the compound meter 6/8 are often counted (incorrctly in the case of compound meter) as: "1 2 3 4 5 6". It will appear to the reader that the simple meter 6/8 and compound meter 6/8 are the same sound. In simple meter 6/8, the cycle of six counts will refer to the beat level, when the reader encounters a compound 6/8, there is nothing to make him aware that his point of reference has shifted from the beat level to the first level of subdivision. The counting of subdivisions (in this case 16ths) in the six beat, simple meter count keeps the point of reference the same and will help to distinguish it from the compound meter,(two beat) six subdivision count.
Well, that's one way to look at it. But isn't it simpler just to say that the normal (compound) 6/8 is counted, say, 1-2-3 2-2-3, where simple meter is just counted 1-2-3-4-5-6? This makes it clear that the compound meter is a duple division, while simple just counts the beats out. No? ILike2BeAnonymous 05:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree totally. It is easier and too bad it's not the norm! When I teach my piano students, I allow them to tap with a mallet and count 2/4 with a triplet and then 6/8 counted as: 123 223. It's a challenge for them to verbalize 123 223! Maybe that's why it doesn't stick as well. For new students, I have to remember to go the the back of their first year method book and over-write the explaination of compound 6/8: " 6/8 is counted, 123456. There are six beats in a measure with accents on beats 1 & 4" I guess it comes out to the same thing in the short run, but without pointing out the differences at the first level of subdivision, they don't have a clear understanding of what's really happening. PB 4-3-06
Heh; if you really want to challenge them, you ought to make them beat out 2/4 against 6/8 simultaneously. Or are kids today such idiots (or our expectations of them so abysmally low) that we shouldn't expect them to be able to do this? Used to be this kind of thing was considered a normal part of a musician's training. Oh, well. ILike2BeAnonymous 19:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
PB 4-4 Yes, I do have them do that at the end of their first year, but it is a challenge for those who've been born with minimal talent.

Getting back to the topic at hand: as they say, now we're getting somewhere. You added this to the article (I think):

When viewed from a real world perspective, a simple-meter 6/8 has no productive purpose, due to the fact that once the sound of a three-beat grouping is established, there's no need to double it up. The result of using 6/8 as two doubled-up 3/8's in a simple meter format (non-dotted beats and subdivisions in "duplets" rather than "triplets") merely adds to the morass of needless modern time signatures that result in generations of confused students and teachers alike.

Not to belabor the point, but I'm not sure this is correct. I believe there are examples of music that use 6/8 to mean groupings of 6 beats intentionally, and not groups of 3. Unfortunately, can't think of any specifically at the moment, but I'm positive I've played music (orchestral music) where the beat unit was 6. In which case, simple 6/8 can be perfectly legitimate and doesn't necessarily add to the "morass of needless modern time signatures" (which, I'll grant you, does exist). Whaddya think? ILike2BeAnonymous 22:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly the point being discussed here, the term "simple-meter 6/8" refers to a situation in which the second through sixth eighth notes receive an equal weight, as opposed to the fourth one receiving a secondary beat stress. I have only seen that in pretty specialized kinds of music, for example mixed-meter music which goes from 3/8 to 5/8 to 8/8 to 6/8 to 1/8 and so on, with a pretty relentless eighth-note pulse: Philip Glass for example. But that's pretty unusual, and I've never heard a special term used to describe it. Less-common signatures such as 4/8 and 8/8 often appear in that context as well. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
PB 4-4-06 Yes, I did add the "morass of needless modern time signatures" and I have an excellent example. I hate to rough-up Lennie (God rest his soul) but the 6/8 3/4 in America is totally pointless. It's just two measures of 3/4 with an heavy accent on the "+" of two in the first measure: |1 + 2 + 3 + | 1 + 2 + 3 + |. Furthermore, if you view the 6/8 as a compound 6/8 (which is what it seems like at first listen) it leads one to confirming that it's in 5/4. (6/8, two beats in a measure plus the three beats in the 3/4 bar). If you view the first bar of 6/8 as a simple meter 6/8, then everything works out, other than the fact that it's another modern time signature that adds to the swampy mess that students and professionals have to navigate through.
[allow me to interject here] Actually, the 6/8-3/4 combination perfectly describes what Lennie intended: as I remember (not having listened to this in some time), the whole phrase goes "Ev' ry one's free in-a me ri ca", which maps to |1 2 3 4 5 6| |1 & 2 & 3 &|—clearly a 6/8 (duple) bar followed by a 3/4 (triple) bar, which is the whole schtick of that phrase. Why don't you think this is legitimate, or why do you think this is part of a "swampy mess"? It communicates the rhythmic intentions of that phrase perfectly. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
PB 4-4 It's not that I don't like LB or his composition, but it seems to me if something can be written in 3/4 with an accent, why not just write it that way? I not so sure there's any difference from what's written above than what the sound of the 3/4 with an accent. Anyway, it sure has sparked an interesting debate.

PB 4-4-06 Concerning the beat unit of six. I saw a Schumann piano piece recently that had the time signature "CC" and the phrase markings went along with eight beat linear patterns. Now, I would think that this would have most of us saying: "Mmmm, do we really need to double-up 4/4"? Once we have a 4/4 pattern, don't we know what's happening? (Maybe even 2/4 for that matter!)Doesn't the phrasing of the music simply "float" over the top of the basic rhythmic pattern? The same goes for a simple meter 6/8: Once the grouping of three is established we know what the sound is, the phrasing or the floating of the actual linear elements do not have to be pointed out by using doubled up time signatures. Except, in the case of 6/8 or 12/8, where in contemporary radio music we hear tunes like Alicia Keys "If I ain't got you". Here the piano starts out in a second level of (16th note) 'triplet' subdivisions. (Technically a group of three 1/8th notes but I'll call them triplets for bevity.) Later the drums enter and we can hear the first level of 1/8th note 'triplet' subdivisions played by the high-hat and then the kick and snare drums defining the beat level. The kick and snare drums establishing the "4/4" pattern required for contemporary music to sell). This is a perfect example where the compound 6/8 or 12/8 is required: There are two separate levels of 'triplet' subdivisions and a beat level in groups of two beats or four beats depending if you hear it, either in 6/8 or 12/8. Because the tune is slow, 12/8 would be the preferred choice of time signature. But, I can't see anything wrong with 6/8, because 12/8 is just a doubling of 6/8. Maybe 12/8 also adds to the morass of needless modern time signatures?

It occurs to me that if you dislike Lennie (well, at least his usage of time signatures), you probably hate Beethoven. I say this after taking a look at the 9th symphony. Specifically, you ought to take a look at the 2nd movement (Molto vivace), written in 3/4. Now, there's nothing exceptional about the time signature or its usage; what is interesting, though, is what might be called the macroscopic rhythmic groupings that Beethoven uses. In fact, it's explicitly marked. For instance, at mm 177, he marks "Ritmo di tre battute". I remember a rehearsal of this piece where the conductor took some time to explain this to us players, most of who were clueless as to what this marking meant. It means that the measures are to be played in groups of 3. Keep in mind that this is a fast tempo (marked dotted half note=116), so it's basically zipping by in 1. Then later, at mm 234, the marking "Ritmo di quattro battute" appears, meaning the rhythmic unit is now four measures. Is this more "morass/swampy mess", or a clear indication of how to achieve the result the composer wanted? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Well that's a matter of what your view of "morass/swampy mess" would be. In the above, by what you describe it looks as if it would be notated today as a compound 12/4 or easier to read (due to the beamed 1/8th notes) 12/8. Which one is harder to read or understand? This may be a good example of what is complicated written out simply may be easier if one approaches the swampy mess. That's a good question! In Beethoven's time, would using a compound 12/4 have been available to him as a daily practice? That I don't know. Anyone? PB 4-4-06
So far as ease of reading goes, the music is as easy to read as possible as is: it's almost all quarter notes, hardly any eighths (except after dotted quarters), so beaming isn't an issue. Here the composer found the most direct way to write out their intentions schematically.
I get the feeling that you're sort of campaigning for easier-to-understand notation on behalf of underachieving young music students. Is that off the mark? If not, take away their damn PlayStations, pagers and other crap and tell them to pay attention!==ILike2BeAnonymous 03:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that all the "crap" that the kids have to play with today does distract them from their work, but my orginal edit (which I should not have done without entering the discussion page first) was to correct the orginal writer's assumption that compound meter was the result of the beat plus the dot... or something to that effect. Beyond that, I don't think I'm campaigning for easier-to-understand notation as much as to nullify the concept that time signatures must be constructed to follow the lenghths of musical phrases. Simple patterns exist in music, and when they are available, why make it something more complicated than it is? I don't think that explaining the compound 12/8 concept with two levels of 'triplet' subdivisions and the initial beat level created by the drums found in Alicia Keys "If I Ain't Got You" is easy at all. The somewhat misleading sheet music that a student brought to me was written in 3/4 time with the instructions to play it in 'One'. What kind of a beat pattern is 'one'? Tell a drummer to play in 'one' and he'll laugh at you. There is no such thing, even though it's added to music all the time. Music has to have at least a group of two or a group of three beats to have some sort of pattern. Calling something what it isn't in order to simplify it, is certainly not the way to go.
It's interesting that the "morass/swampy mess" thing hit a real nerve ending here! Instead of chewing on tinfoil, have the orginal author take my text down, return the explaination of compound meter to, "a note plus the dot", and whatever else was lacking scholarship. Let's not think or listen to what we're doing and how we teach students, let's just parrot the cloudy ideas we've accumulated over time as some sort of gospel truth that can't be questioned or discussed. PB 4-5-06
Hey, you're not getting off the hook that easily! No, this is good stuff. I have no solid conclusions yet, but I think it's definitely worth exploring, even if it takes us outside the bounds of "accepted scholarship". Ooooooh, what a frightening thought!
Just one specific question: let's say you were given the task of notating that little snatch of "America" that was discussed above. How would you do it? and why? (I don't know the Alicia Keys piece—who the hell is she, anyhow?—so can't really use that.) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be a spoilsport, but the purpose of this article is to explain how time signatures are used, not how you think they should be used. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Font

Question at Talk:Musical_notation#Time_signature_font.3F: What is the standard font for time signatures? Hyacinth 01:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unconventional

Can we include the song "Eleven." It's by Primus, and it's in 11/7. Off the album "sailing the seas of cheese."

There's no such thing as 11/7. But anyway, examples go at List of works in irregular time signatures. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complex signatures redux

In a recent edit the introduction to this section became this:

Signatures which are composed of the addition of unequal subdivisions of the bar are called complex time signatures, asymmetric meters or irregular time signatures.

I have to admit I don't really understand what this sentence is saying. I've tried parsing it several ways, but it's still unclear, so I can only imagine that others will have the same reaction. I understand the problems with the previous incarnation which stated that a complex time signature has a numerator of 5, 7 or some other odd number. Unfortunately, this is little improvement. Can the editor please explain what was meant—or better yet, reword this to make it clearer? +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's have a quick think... It seems clear enough to me, and I can't immediately think of a more elegant way of saying it; after all, the term is intended to catch/omit quite sizeable categories of subconcepts, so some clunkiness of phrasing in its definition is to be expected. I agree that a better phrasing is certainly possible though; to explain the meaning of the above, "composed of the addition of unequal subdivisions of the bar" states that the bar breaks down into smaller stress units (e.g. one possible interpretation of 5/8 is 3/8 + 2/8) which are not equal in length. However, this does exclude a couple of cases that come to mind - i) When there is only one stress in a bar of many beats (e.g. the 11/4 bar of bass drum crotchets in the Rite of Spring), and ii) When there are two or more stresses of equal length, but these divide differently. A signature of 6/8 + 3/4 would fall into this category - as in Bernstein's 'America', but with two bars folded into one. I'll return to this when I have time. Dave Taylor 10:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I've reworded it to be more catch-all. Do people like this version? Dave Taylor 08:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Dunno about "catch-all", but it's much better, and understandable to the layperson. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/i/m/Talk%7ETime_signature_f4dd.html"