Talk:Compound meter (music)

It makes no sense

According to the definition in the current article, compound duple meter is in fact not a compound meter. That makes NO SENSE whatsoever. 79.138.177.245 (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition 1

Moving this (Done by User:Tarquin). It may be another meaning which I'm not aware of:

comprising a number of beats greater than four. Time signature having one beat are rare; those having two, three or four beats are common; those having more than four can be considered compounds of more common meters.

A musician playing in ⁵₄, for instance, may choose to count three beats followed by two, or two followed by three, since counting in groups of two or three is more familiar than in larger groups. Most musicians will find a count of 1-2-3 1-2 much more natural than 1-2-3-4-5. When the numerator gets bigger such a strategy is indispensible, as in time signatures such as ¹³₈.

Definition 2

Written by user User:Mardilh)

There are several definitions of the term. The one mentioned above is closest to that used in the eighteenth and nineteenth century: 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.

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 given in the main article (also in the "meter" article) is IMHO a corrupt use, also quite pervasive. I have not yet had time to trackdown the history of calling mixed compound.

Merge request

Can someone who actually knows what Mardilh is on about please merge his stuff into the main article? I'd do it myself, but I don't quite understand it; I do understand, though, that he's saying that there are multiple definitions, and I'd like to see his alternate explained properly.

-- TimNelson 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this gives me a headache... I love music theory and I love Wikipedia so why do the two not seem to mix?--Ross angus 02:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English Phenomenon?

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 of simple vs compound metre ever before, and would be interested if this concept exists outside of English-native countries. Of course you learn 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 in my understanding, as each beat can be divided into multiples of 2, while the 6/8 is a compound metre, as 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)[reply]

Sting's I Hung My Head

That song is definitely a good example of additive rhythm, but it's not (4+4+1)/8. It sounds to me most as (2+3+2+2)/8 (the bass drum makes this quite clear), but 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 make that much sense as the bass is tied into the second, fourth bar and so on. Starting with a 5/8 would make more sense IMHO. If it's really written as 9/8 originally, than I would maintain that it is (2+3+2+2)/8. Maybe someone could corroborate who has access to the original sheet music or Sting's brain? ;) I'm sure there was a section on this topic (no, not Sting's brain, the meter of I Hung My Head of course!) in this very discussion article just yesterday but today it's gone?! Mathi80 (talk) 22:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete

I "undeleted" this article, as there is no given reason why the article was completely wiped and replaced with a redirect. To delete or merge an article, you need consensus The best way to get this is to put this up on the official Articles for Deletion page. Even if you expect a copyright violation, you still need to say something on this page, and put up a speedy delete template on the article page. Thank you. — trlkly 01:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, consensus is not required. Wikipedia:Be bold encourages obvious cases like this one to be carried out without a formal proposal and consensus. However, since you have objected, it is only fair to discuss whether this should be a separate article. It seems to be almost completely duplicated (word for word, in fact) in the subsection Meter (music)#Compound meter. What is your rationale for keeping an article that duplicates a subsection in another? While we're about it, doesn't the proposal to merge Additive meter into Time signature also have a bearing on this matter?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is a complete duplicate indeed, I endorse the deletion and redirect to Meter (music)#Compound meter. Mathi80 (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it, even if it is word for word, the subject can be expanded upon and therefore deserves it's own page. The meter page now is pretty lengthy and could use a trim by restoring this page. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]