Talk:Septuple meter/Archive 1

Archive 1

Excessive List

I see the problem with it in comparison to the rest of the article, but what is prohibiting us from creating List of music in septuple meter? Also, IMSLP scores should be considered a source. Can't get much more direct than the actual scores... --Devin.chaloux (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

IMSLP is not a publisher, but of course scores found there can be used as sources, if properly attributed to their actual publishers. As to creating a "list of . . .", this article was originally created by removing it from the List of musical works in unusual time signatures. It seems to me that reverting it to a "list of" would be counterproductive. Rather, it should be recast on the model of the article Quintuple meter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Main Title to 1978 film Watership Down

Angela Morely stated (she died in January 2009) in her official website that Malcolm Williamson composed the main title music for the 1978 film Watership Down in 7/8 time. See http://www.angelamorley.com/site/watercues.htm . She orchestrated the piece when Williamson became ill and went on to write most of the rest of the cues for the film. The 7/8 time signature helps to give the piece a undulating bird-flight-like, pastoral feel. Although the film didn't have much success in the USA, it was massively successful in UK, much of Europe and Australia. As such this example of 7/8 time was heard by many people, not that many of them would have known nor cared about the time signature! Downsman (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That looks like a fairly reliable source to me. What is stopping you from adding it to the article? I would only suggest that you incorporate it into the prose text of the article itself, rather than adding it to the trivia list at the end. That not only would give the entry more dignity, but would also contribute toward the goal of turning this into a proper article, instead of a cemetery memorial slab.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Unknown song in 7/4

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01l938x/Britains_Olympic_Torch_Story/ at 24 minutes 10 seconds in, there is a song in 7/4. If it is already in the article I apologise, but if it isn't and it is notable, could someone identify it and add it? Even if it's not notable I would be interested in the identification of it. tractakid (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, if you cannot identify the song, what hope is there of finding a reliable source that says this is in 7/4? Second, it does not appear that notability criteria are particularly important here, so long as such a reliable source can be found so, if you do succeed in discovering what it is, and find a reliable source, there should be nothing to stop you adding it to the list. Much better, though, would be to work it into the text of the article, on the model of the Quintuple meter article. That way it can be given some context, and not just be relegated to a trivia list.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm Broken by Pantera - verses

The verses are in 7/8 time not unlike Dance On a Volcano by Genesis. OwlyChamberlain (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Do you have a reliable source for this?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Die to Live is mixed

'Die to Live' by Steve Vai has a 4/4 section in the middle. It should be moved to the second list of tracks but I don't have any particular source stating that that 4/4 section is there so my opinion constitutes original research. :)

Also the Organissimo track 'Play Nice' is in 7/4 time but I have no source saying so. 207.241.137.116 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unofficial List

I think an unofficial list is needed to, first, make it clear that there are hundreds of these songs and secondly create a simple place to add songs where a source isn't available. This can also serve as a better list for people who are trying to collect songs in septuple meter, since those individuals don't necessarily care whether a piece has a source backing it up.

Feel free to add potential sources after the song names, and maybe move songs w/ good sources to the main article. But note that it'd be nice to keep the main article list useful to people by sticking mainly to notable tracks.

• 2:41 by Counterfeit I
• 7 8 by Voxtone
• 7 8 by The Summer Floods
• 7 8s by BOMBSHELTER
• 7 8ths Alone by Artemisia Tassi
• 7%4 by Adam Metroka
• 7-4 by Ljova on Melting Pot
• 7-4 by Edward Nord
• 7-4 by Corey Kilgannon
• 7-4 by Miniweapon
• 7-8 by Gipsy.cz on Romano Hip Hop
• 7-8 by Briar Patches
• 7-8 by Josh Hurricks
• 7-8 by mistetrnorman
• 7-8 by Tyre Fire
• 7-8 Marimba by Will Matthews
• 7/4 by Lona i Webber on Absurd i nonsens
• 7/4 by Preston Reed on Blue Vertigo
• 7/4 by Memória de Peixe
• 7/4 (Shoreline) by Broken Social Scene
• 7/4 douxe by Tarace Boulba on Une fois encore
• 7/8 by Soltész Péter
• 7/8 by Joshua Sitron on Biblical Digital
• 7/8 by Sheshet
• 7 Beat 2011 (C5) by Van der Wall
• 7 Hills by BLÄNK
• 7 O'Clock by Luke Freeman
• 7 x 4 by Sorkun on Duna
• 7·8 by the TEK TEK Enseble
• 30 Ghosts IV by Nine Inch Nails
• 160 BPM by Hans Zimmer
• Kakaphonic Song by BOMBSHELTER
• (En) el séptimo día by Soda Stereo on Canción animal
• A kaj kak pak ampak tu tam sim si naredil, tak ti bu by Ŝta ima?
• A Shaman's Whisper by Gordian Knot on Emergent
• Aaron by Venetian Snares
• Aaron 2 by Venetian Snares
• Abacus by Larry Graves
• Adventurer System by Foil Variant
• After 7 by Andy Watts
• All the Little Things by Visc. on Virtual Friends
• Ambidextrous by Half Face
• Anandakaneer by Kuldeep Pai on Kalpataru
• And We Are Left Us by Dragontheory
• Android Love by Daniel Michael on The Robot
• Another World of Beasts by Nobuo Uematsu
• Ashet by Reasonable Panda
• Be Happy by Mahavishnu Orchestra on Visions of the Emerald Beyond
• Bebikukorica Nigiri by Venetian Snares
• Big Gates by Space Cadet
• Black Cat by Gentle Giant
• Blue Daffodils by Pete Namlook & Spyra
• Brass Menazeri Chetvorno by Peter Jaques
• Broken Pulse by Involved Channel
• Brother A Teaches 7 by Will Ackerman
• Brownian Motion by Luke Stark
• Cabbage by Venetian Snares
• Cadaverous by Venetian Snares
• CCUK by Venetian Snares
• chicha Libre Tequila by Noble Byron
• Chichester Psalms 1 Maestoso Ma Energico by Leonard Bernstein
• Children's Limbo by Venetian Snares
• Chill Out! by Neil Snoot-Williams
• Choprite by Venetian Snares
• Circle Pit by Venetian Snares
• Cliffside by Hurtdeer
• Clipping the 8th (Hello Hello) by Caravan
• Closer by Viv Murrell
• Concrete by Kubbi on Circuithead
• Count 7 by Thomas Stock
• Counter of the Cumulus by Disasterpeace on Rise of the Obsidian Interstellar
• Cracked and Blistered by Jeff Holtzkener
• Crackest by Venetian Snares
• Crashing the Yogurt Truck by Venetian Snares
• Current Jan 12 by The Black Jackalope Ensemble on Live Takes 2012
• Dance on a Volcano by Genesis on A Trick of the Tail
• Danse du Papillon by David Grimes
• Darbuka 7/8 by Rhythms of the Earth
• Dark Matter by Porcupine Tree on Signify
• Dawn by Mahavishnu Orchestra on The Inner Mounting Flame
• De Casa by Dani Gurgel on Agora
• Dear John by Clearly Beloved
• Decent Days and Nights (Max Tundra Remix)
• Deduction by Shoji Meguro
• Deepchandi by Master Margherita on Hippies with Gadgets
• Deeper Depths by Whitaker Trebella on Nimble Quest
• Depths by Whitaker Trebella on Nimble Quest
• Der Heysser Zibn by Peter Jaques
• Deu Sex Machina by Pete Namlook & Spyra
• Die to Live by Steve Vai on Alien Love Secrets
• Disordered Minds by Artemisia Tassi
• Distance by Si Cliff
• Divertissiments for Performing Bears by 3 Leg Torso
• Dogri Folk Tune: Taal Deepchandi by Shivkumar Sharma on The Golden Collection
• Dolleater by Venetian Snares on Find Candace
• Dreaming in Metaphors by Seal
• Dreamscar by Foil Variant
• Duel-Seeking Eyes by halc on Legitimacy
• Duffy by Venetian Snares
• Dungeon by Nobuo Uematsu
• East of the Sun by Itamitaband
• Elektrik by King Crimson
• Epidermis by Venetian Snares
• Esther's Nose Job by Soft Machine
• Estimated Prophet by The Grateful Dead
• Eurocore MVP by Venetian Snares
• Even If You Don't by Ween on White Pepper
• Ever Apparent All Being Shoulder by Venetian Snares
• Everything is Permanent by Deathmole
• Feat of the Athletes by Disasterpeace
• Flashforward by Venetian Snares
• Follow the Calling by Luke Freeman
• Frame by Frame by King Crimson on Discipline
• Frictional Nevada by Venetian Snares
• Garota de Ipanema by Paulo Bira
• Gentleman by Venetian Snares
• Gita by Mahavishnu Orchestra on Inner Worlds
• Gubbkäppar by Esbjörn Utan Skor on Detta land denna svinakonung
• Hajnal 2 by Venetian Snares
• Hand Throw by Venetian Snares
• Happy Painting for All by Maarten Ornstein
• Have a Good Time by Paul Simon
• Hepbeat by 女子十二乐坊 on Beautiful Energy
• Hey Duke by Freek Mulder
• Hilton Dance by Mai Group
• Hope by Mahavishnu Orchestra on Birds of Fire
• Hospitality by Venitian Snares
• Pillow Shower (hour two) by Grant Livesay on Late October Legal
• How Long? by Ericksøn on Old Beginnings
• Husikam Rave Doo by Venetian Snares
• Hvorfor by Weeke Sarrabezolles
• Hyped by Woody Pak feat. Prime
• I Know That You Know That I Would Wipe Away The Snowflake From Your Eye by Screaming Maldini
• I'm Self-Destructive by Hurtdeer
• I'm Sorry I Failed You by Venetian Snares
• I'm the One by dzmoore
• Indonezijska Moĉvara by Ŝta ima?
• Infinity 7/8 by Randomatik Blast
• Ji^molfe by yugenro
• John's Song #2 by Mahavishnu Orchestra on The Lost Trident Sessions
• Just Friends by Henk & Niels
• Kakarookee Hates Me by Venetian Snares
• Kétsarkú mozgalom by Venetian Snares
• Kimberly Clark by Venetian Snares
• Kineska Mocvara by Sta ima?
• Kyokushin by Venetian Snares
• Labia by Venetian Snares
• Last Hope by Big Giant Circles
• Legitimacy by halc on Legitimacy
• Let in Hollywood by Karmakanic
• Lethe's Tide by June Humor
• Level Five by King Crimson
• Life in Glorious Stereo by Screaming Maldini
• Like Masochists by BradleyHeartVampire
• Little Yellow Envelope by Sophie Ballamy
• liturgy of literally lucky ducks by Grant Livesay
• Loss by Don Ellis
• Lost Harmonic Identity Part H by The Klirrfaktor
• Lucid Anne by Self on Subliminal Plastic Motives
• Make Ronnie Rocket by Venetian Snares
• March of the Pigs by Nine Inch Nales
• Marching Season by Yanni
• Marty's Tardis by Venetian Snares
• Math Rock Demo by Mark Fegan
• Második galamb by Venetian Snares
• Measure of a Man (parts a through d) by Smartech
• Mesmerization Eclipse by Captain Beyond
• Michael's 7/8 by The Mighty Sparrows
• Midnight Blizzard A Lullaby by Attenuate on Mirage
• Mikrokosmos, Book 4, BB 105: N. 113 Bulgarian Rhythm 1 by Bartok
• Misra Dhun in Chanchor by Snehashish Mozumder on Mandolin Dreams
• Missing Sevenths by Half Past four on Rabbit in the Vestibule
• Miyan Ki Todi by Lakshmi Shankar on Life of Dedication
• Moon Base by Whitaker Trebella on Super Stickman Golf: Original Soundtrack
• Moonglow by Venetian Snares
• more Of It by Louise Goffin
• Mother by The Police on Synchronicity
• Mother Africa by David Waldner
• Municipale Balcanica by DJ Delay
• Music for Chips by Xerxes
• My Half by Venetian Snares
• My Heart by Damon Luther
• Never (fade) by Jean-Paul De Roover
• Ninne Nammi Nanu by V. Sanjeev on Sunaadha Manjari
• Now That I've Given Up Hope, I Feel Much Better by Shout Out Out Out Out
• On Valentines Day by The Sportswriters
• One Beat Short of... by Nick Street
• One More Night by CAN on Ege Bamyasi
• One Way Mirror by Rainbow Massacre on These Bones
• Öngyilkos vasárnap by Venetian Snares
• Pink + Green by Venetian Snares
• Pink + Green VIP by Venetian Snares
• Planinska by Sta ima? on Povedalinke
• Play Nice by Organissimo on This is the Place
• Plunging Hornets by Venetian Snares
• Poo Yourself Jason by Venetian Snares
• Pop Clump by Hurtdeer
• Pussy Wiggle Stomp by Don Ellis on Don Ellis at Fillmore
• Pwntendo by Venetian Snares
• Quest I On by Artemia
• Quolujuijana by Hurtdeer
• Rag Bhairavi: Gat in Rupak by Steve Gord & Benjy Wertheimer on Priagitah The Nightengale
• Rag Desh: Gat in Rupak Tal by Steve Gord & Benjy Wertheimer on Priagitah The Nightengale
• Raga Madhuvanti: Gat in Rupak by Anoushka Shankar on Live at Carnegie Hall
• Ravayya Maa Intiki - Anada bhairviMisra Chapu by Sri Rama Nama Sudha Lahari
• Redwood / Boy Meets Girl by Smoke Theif
• Renegades by BOMBSHELTER
• Right Hand Man by Joan Osborne on One Of Us
• Rubylove by Cat Stevens
• Rumelia by TÜNDRA
• Rupak by Eternal Bliss on Full-Om
• Rupak by Tor Dietrichson on Global Village
• Rupak Tal by Ravi Shankar on Ragas & Talas
• Rupak Variatins by Zakir Hussain
• Sahara 7/8 by Giuseppe Onofrietti
• Sailing for the War by Wes Martin
• Saint Augustine in Hell by Sting on Ten Summoner's Tales
• Sajtban by Venetian Snares on Detrimentalist
• Saloon by James Mulvael
• sed by ego; on flechas blancas
• Seeside by Namarupa
• Septimus by Ilan Eshkeri
• Sette Ottavi by Stati Alterati
• Sevate by Shane Lysse
• Seven by Dave Matthews Band
• Seven by Gackt on Rebirth
• Seven by Oz Noy on Schizophrenic
• Seven by Marco Sfogli on There's Hope
• Seven 4 by Absent Element on Uprooted
• Seven Beats by Toto Bona Lokua
• Seven Beats by Shift on Emporium
• Seven Sisters by John McLaughlin on The Heart of Things
• Seven Steps by Cassandra Wilson on Traveling Miles
• Shortcomings by Solarbear on ChipWIN Expansion Pack
• Silent Birds by Birdmask
• Silly 7/8 by Dave Patterson
• Sinthasomphone by Venetian Snares
• Sleighride in 7/8 time! by John Eidsvoog
• Snena Nuevo by Sta ima? on Povedalinke
• Sol by Derris-Kharlan on ChipWIN Expansion Pack
• Solsbury Hill by Peter Gabriel
• Southern Boogie by Half Past Four on Rabbit in the Vestibule
• Spider in the Snow by The Dismemberment Plan on The Ice of Boston
• Square Peg by Sea Grey
• Start Again by Whitman Proud on Run
• Starting Over by Daniel Michael on Project 52 Songs
• State of Mine by IQ on Subterranea
• Stationary Motivator by Machsymbiont on Beginsend
• Stillated Things by Drumur Boy
• Stove Face by Niacin on Time Crunch
• Subdivisions by Rush on Signals
• Summer by Andrew Huang on Summer
• Summer, Somewhere by Screaming Maldini
• Swindon by Venetian Snares
• Sybian Rock by Venetian Snares
• Szamár madár by Venetian Snares
• Szerencsétlen by Venetian Snares
• Şedaraban Devr-i Hindi Şarki by Zeki Müren
• Taal Rupak by Ustad Allarahka on Together
• Tabla Recital: Rupak Tal by Kumar Bose
• Tache by Venetian Snares
• Tears of Joy by Don Ellin
• Texas by My Canadian Girlfriend on …it might even could
• The Awakening by Screaming Maldini
• The Battle of Vyazma by Disasterpeace
• The Bill by Max Tundra
• The Day is Here by Paul Simmans
• The End of Car by NTSignition
• The Fish by Yes on Fragile
• The Ideal Woman by Adrian Belew on Twang Bar King
• The River by Anathallo on Canopy Glow
• The Seven Eights of Xmas by Andrea Babich
• The Temple by Andrew Lloyd Webber from Jesus Christ Superstar
• The Trust by These Are Villains on II
• Them Bones by Alice in Chains on Dirt
• Theme from "The Bill"
• This is Love by Gabriel Lynch
• Tired Starry Night by Daniel Michael on Project 52 Songs
• Tisra Misra by Curtis Andrews on The Offering of Curtis Andrews
• Tokamak by Troxum on Love Quark
• Too Young by Venetian Snares
• Tron Main Theme (Instrumental) by Walter Wendy Carlos on TRON - The Official Soundtrack Score
• Tron Theme & Ending by 8 Bit Weapon on Tron Tribute
• Tusko by Yosha
• Turn the City Lights Off by Pete Namlook & Spyra
• Twenty Four by Hurtdeer
• Two Sun by Hurtdeer
• Unknown Idea by Pedro Costa
• Unsquare Dance by The Dave Brubeck Quartet
• Vace by Venetian Snares
• Vacuum Tree by Trifonic on Emergence
• Vrlika by Sta ima? on Povedalinke
• Wanderluster by Band of Skulls on Sweet Sour
• Welfare Wednesday by Venetian Snares
• What Would I Want? Sky by Animal Collective
• Whatever it's Called by Emptycafe
• Whiplash by Don Ellis
• Winnipeg as Mandatory Scat Feed by Venetian Snares
• Winnipeg is a Frozen Shithole by Venetian Snares
• Words, Words, Words (Martin's Laughing Song) by London Symphony Orchestra on Bernstein Conducts Candide
• You Can't Keep A Bad Man Down by Oceansize
• You Will Not Fix Me by Daniel Michael
• π by Matthew Saltz & Ryan Helsing
• Flirting with Destruction by Darnakes

Partially Septuple

• 7 8 by ゆよゆっぺ on For a Sick Boy
• A Warning by Lamb of God on New American Gospel
• Antigreen by Troxum on Love Quark
• Befriend a Childkiller by Venetian Snares
• Better by Jeanna Salzer on Two More 7"
• Chinaski R.I.P by Venetian Snares
• Chlorophyll by Venetian Snares
• Cruel Whole (Abelcain Mix) by Venetian Snares
• Dollmaker by Venetian Snares
• Elie by My Canadian Girlfriend on …it might even could
• Find Candace by Venetian Snares
• Freddy the 17th by BetZe
• Harmattan by Asumaya on Empty is Open
• Highway by Nosferatu
• I Wuv You Mommy by Schnauser
• I'm a Mason Now by Jonathan Coulton on Smoking Monkey
• Let You Down by Albany on The Bull and the Bear EP
• Love Is Stronger Than Justice by Sting on Ten Summoner's Tales
• Midi Treat by BetZe
• Misra-câpu on Percussion of India by World Music Library
• Murder by Numbers by The Police on Synchronicity
• Outshined by Soundgarden on A-Sides
• Raag Misra Kafi by Pt. Shiv Kumar Sharma on Feelings
• Rocker 1 by My Canadian Girlfriend on …it might even could
• See Van by BetZe
• Seven by 吉田兄弟 on Prism
• Spoonman by Soundgarden on Superunknown
• Tattoo by Venetian Snares
• The Sound of Muzak by Porcupine Tree on In Absentia
• Tillana by V. Savjeev on Sunaadha Manjari
• Time by Pink Floyd
• Twelve Streets of Cobbled Black by Wild Turkey on Battle Hymn
• Walmer Side by Venetian Snares
• You Might Already Have Me, Rossi by BradleyHeartVampire
• You, Naked by Root Glen

Dranorter (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

There already is such an unverified list, at Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures/Unsourced, though the section on septuple meters is very modest. You might consider adding your nominations there. However, your warning about "hundreds of songs" is an important point, and this article has already got a banner on it complaining about "excessive, poor, or irrelevant examples", and suggesting the removal of "less pertinent examples". I have done my best to incorporate as much relevant data into the prose of the article but, when faced with an avalanche like this, there really is nothing that can be done. We might as well start compiling an epic list of all songs in 4/4.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I have begun striking out items in the list that are already covered in the article, as in the discussion of rupak tal in the context of Hindustani classical music. I notice several other items with "rupak" in the title, though some of these, at least, are clearly not North Indian style.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed for devr-i turan vs devr-i hindi

Devr-i hindi (3+2+2) and devr-i turan (2+2+3) are also listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usul_%28music%29 but without citations. I can find many links on the internet that state the difference but no book. Can someone help please? --kupirijo (talk) 08:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I was the editor who asked for the reference, hoping someone with more experience would come to the rescue. I shall see what I can find. Internet resources are sometimes reliable, sometimes not. Can you supply one or two URLs to those sites you found?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Septuple 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.pandora.com/archives/podcast/2007/09/meters_time_sig.html

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Paranoid Android

paranoid android by radiohead is in 7/8 at parts, i dont have a source, but its pretty obvious

Alas, "pretty obvious" is not Wikipedia policy, which requires a reliable source. I would love to add "Puttin' on the Ritz" to this list, if for no other reason than to correct the misapprehension spread by Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry (in an episode of the TV series Jeeves and Wooster) that it is in "syncopated 5/4 time". That one is "pretty obvious", too (as Jeeves explains it), so long as you do not require the beats all to be of the same length! Unfortunately, the published sheet music prints it in 4/4 time, and of course those septuple rhythms are actually just syncopations against the four background beats. This is, by the way, about the 30th time "Paranoid Android" has been suggested, first for the List of musical works in unusual time signatures and later here, now that septuple meter has an article of its own. I hope someone finds a source for it soon.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Paranoid Android has sections in 7/8 according to the score in the OK Computer songbook. i imagine this counts as a reliable source, yes? --Thearcanemaster (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)thearcanemaster

Is it a published book (either in hard copy or online)? If so, then it is probably a reliable source, and it should be added to the source already offered.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Producer Michael G noted that "Paranoid Android" was particularly difficult to arrange for reggae, saying "There are songs like 'Paranoid Android', which flips between 4/4 time and 7/8 time about 13 times, and I also had to think about other ways to reinterpret those parts with horns, melodica, organ ... it was a great challenge." This is the reliable source you need. However, I doubt people are still reading this section after four years. I'll just go ahead and add it. -- Pagen HD (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Does syncopated 5/4 mean 5/4 with eighth notes stressed differently?? I think that's similar to 10/8. Georgia guy (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

In the context of "Puttin' on the Ritz" and the Jeeves and Wooster episode it means putting the stress on "If", "blue", "you", "know", and "where" (then repeat on "to", "to", "don't" "go" and "where"), which means counting five "beats", the first two of which are each twice as long as each of the remaining three (i.e.,     )—in other words, not 5/4 at all, but rather 7/8 (or 2/4 + 2/4 + 3/8). I suppose technically there is no syncopation, either, because, whether you count it in a rapid seven beats or an slow-and-fast five, every accent falls on a beat.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I *think* parts of the John Miles song "Music" are in 7/4 time, e.g., starting at 1 minute in the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSsWWA2_SDQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.16.184.252 (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says so? —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 01:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, no. All I have is a hunch. 192.16.184.252 (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

To Pagen HD: Old Wikipedia editors never die, we only smell that way.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Some of these songs have the wrong time signature, no?

Hi,

I noticed that some songs, like "Paranoid Android", "Tom Sawyer", and "Heart of Glass", are written as being partially in 7/8 where describing the signature as 7/4 would be better suited. A 7/8 meter implies a septuplet as the main unit of time, at least as per convention: an x/4 measure, like 3/4 or 6/4, implies that the metric unit is the quarter note, or that the quarter note "gets the beat". An x/8 measure is often taught as "the eighth note gets the beat", but I've seldom, if ever, encountered validity in that. Upon little further analysis, one knows that a 6/8 or 12/8 meter is not six or twelve beats long, but much more akin to swung duple or quadruple time. 9/8 is not a "nonuple" meter; it is considered "compound triple". A 7/8 meter then, being based on a number divisible by neither two or three, cannot be divided equally into compound beats, but it can be interpreted as a measure consisting of two simple beats (2/8) and one compound beat (3/8) -- 2+2+3 /8, for instance, is found in Rush's "Subdivisions". With the songs mentioned above, I don't find that, or, if a septuplet is extractible from the rhythm, it is never in a consistent pattern. For instance, "Paranoid Android"'s 7/4 interludes can be counted out as a six-beat pattern of two simple beats, two compound beats, and two simple beats (2+2+3+3+2+2). The solo in "Tom Sawyer" can be counted this way as well. "Heart of Glass" seems not to even use compound beats, which is understandable, as it is a disco song ("seven-on-the-floor"). This distinction between simple and compound beats, by the way, is the reason why I don't think of, for instance, "Clocks" by Coldplay, as being in 4/4... I think of it as 8/8: the primary rhythm of the piano vamp is two compound beats followed by one simple beat (3+3+2) -- essentially a tresillo. I feel like I wouldn't be able to modify the content in the article to fit what I've been saying here as it would probably be taken as WP:OR, but perhaps conferring with other Wikipedians might help. Is what I'm saying making sense? I feel like things like this are useful to take into account. --CPGACoast (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

What you are describing is often called by the name akshak rhythm. Since the traditions in which this type of rhythm is common (Turkish music, for example—the word "akshak" comes from that language) do not generally rely on music written in Western notation, the question of a lower numeral in a time signature is entirely academic. You are quite right, though, that there is a huge difference between a slow, deliberate seven-beat bar and a quicker tempo where the unit value becomes uncomfortably fast to count, and our attention tries to shift to a slower unit. When that unit value is a number like 5 or 7, the situation you describe usually occurs: some beats are longer than others. Pick up the speed even further, and we can fall back on a regular beat again, with each beat subdivided in 5 or 7. Western music theory does not generally recognise this distinction, perhaps because of the fetish with numerals. If the top number in the meter signature is a 7, then the meter is by definition septuple, whether the meter is ⁷
₁ or ⁷
₂₅₆. And, of course, the question of what value we use even for a slow, steady beat is entirely arbitrary, even if we most conventionally think of it as a quarter note. It would be useful to the article to include a discussion of (possibly non-western) theoretical frameworks that do make such a distinction, but I am afraid this is beyond my competence.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

more Lloyd Webber

In Jesus Christ Superstar, isn't "The Temple" largely in 7? —Tamfang (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

This shouldn't be difficult to check, since not only is there a published vocal score, but the details are even given in the list of Sources for this article:

• Lloyd Webber, Andrew (music), and Tim Rice (lyrics). 1970. Jesus Christ Superstar, vocal score, selections. New York: Universal—MCA Music Pub.; Miami: Warner Bros. Publications. ISBN 0-88188-541-X

When I checked that score two or three years ago, I only noticed "Heaven on My Mind", but I may have overlooked something. Or possible "The Temple" isn't one of the included selections. Have you checked this source?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Just added The Temple. Pjcskik19 (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Numbering

Just wondering, how do you write the number next to the song. I see it as two small numbers on top of each other inside parentheses, but I have no idea how to do that on a phone, and I don’t have a computer. Pjcskik19 (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I take it that you are referring to the time signatures. These are displayed by using the "music" template. The syntax is explained here. I assume this can be done from a phone, though I don't edit that way myself.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Need to add: Queen - The Show Must Go On

It is 4/4 + 4/4 + 4/4 + 2/4. I'm modeling it and this is how it mostly goes (except some parts around the guitar solo). It is original source of course but perhaps there is a source online about it. MTN (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I just don’t hear it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjcskik19 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "Starship Groove" by Animusic

When this was removed, the editor did not provide an edit summary. Is the source not reliable enough? ([1]) Or is the entry not notable enough? If the source is not reliable enough, then an alternate source is that in the music video, the blinking towers at the edges of the ship each have 7 lights, to indicate the meter. If it was not notable enough, what exactly are the notability criteria? --Numberguy6 (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It fails both criteria. Source was an unknown individual's transcription. Earlier discussion has established certain criteria for notability, broadly based on WP:LISTCRITERIA. Cambial Yellowing❧ 14:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Citation style

There is currently no consistency in the citation type used on the list of pieces of music. Given the nature of the article, and particularly that the sources are disparate and for the most part not repeated, I suggest we move those not currently fully-tagged inline toward that type. We should avoid short citations because it makes it more difficult for the reader to locate source material. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 18:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging in discussion, per WP:BRD. We are agreed that the citations should be made to follow one style, per WP:CITEVAR, but we disagree on the best way of dealing with the problem. The disparate citation styles (at least three different ones are found currently) date back to the creation of this article in 2010, when it was split off from List of musical works in unusual time signatures. Since then, I have been sporadically attempting to bring the citations into line with the (slightly) predominant SFN format. Today, you made one edit in a contrary direction. Hence my reversion of your edit and request for this discussion. It seems to me that much the better solution would be to link the SFNs to the list of references, as is done on many articles using SFN format. That would provide both the ease of locating source material that you want, while at the same time clearing the clutter in the footnotes and providing an orderly alphabetical list of all the references. I have not yet gotten around to making such links, because I wanted to get more of the formats straightened out first. It has been a long and slow process but, if you think you can convince me I have been going in the wrong direction, I am willing to listen. It would be better, also, if you would refrain from leaving messages on my talk page, threatening me with action for beginning an edit war that you yourself were actually on the verge of initiating.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Short citation style is well-suited to articles where a small number of texts is used multiple times. It is completely unsuitable for articles which include a list of disparate instances of a given phenomenon. It means, as in this case, that the extensive list of references is repeated unnecessarily at the bottom of the article.

You agree that this article currently does not have a consistent citation style. I added content to this article here, choosing an appropriate style for a citation which, like many others, only appears once. You reverted it to the style you happen to prefer within a day or so. I amended the addition I made to the article on noticing the change when perusing the rest of the list. You reverted it to your preferred style within 3 hours, instead of opening discussion on the talk page. That is edit warring, which is why a message was left on your page. If you think it would be better if such messages were not left, I suggest you alter your behaviour. This would mean going to the talk page first, rather than reverting edits based on what appears from your response to be your own imagined ownership of this article. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 19:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

My recent reversion was to the status quo, per WP:BRD, and with a request to bring a discussion to this talk page, which you did not do until after I had requested this a second time. I had no idea that I had made that much earlier edit to the same citation, which was a part of my ongoing efforts to regularize this article's citation style. For what it is worth, my preferred citation style is quite different from any of the ones used in this article, though I agree that, in a list of this type, footnotes are preferable to parenthetical referencing. However, I disagree completely that full-footnote citations are easier to navigate than linked SFNs, the question of repeated citation quite aside. The sheer chaos of a list of 160 full-footnote references is not helpful to the reader. While I admit that progress has been slow, I have been working on this problem for nine years now. Seeing one SFN being converted the other way does not warm my heart.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Legibility, not heart-warming, is the aim here. An alphabetical by-author list of some hundred myriad articles is completely pointless: no-one could derive the slightest benefit from it. That kind of citation is designed for shorter lists of selected most relevant texts/standard works relied on heavily in an article. In an article such as this, even with links, it means an unnecessary additional step in seeking the singly-cited source for a given entry on the list. There is no necessary mutual exclusivity here; as you admit, there is no consistency currently, and there is no reason, were there any sources used more than a handful of times, they cannot be sourced in short form. Why do you want to make the reader make an additional step when the only outcome worth mention is alphabetisation? That is not a benefit. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 21:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

At last, something else we agree on: legibility. But why do you think full-citation footnotes are more legible than SFNs with a nice, tidy list of sources? Surely it is the other way around. As for the reader, what "additional step" is necessary, if the SFNs are linked to the corresponding sources in the alphabetical list?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Your personal opinion of what is a "nice, tidy list" is not important. Tidiness is not an end in itself; its pursuit as an end rather than a means serves very few people. It is only relevant insofar as it helps legibility and usability. The standard inline citation style will show the details of a citation (including hyperlink if avail) when hovering over the number. What you have done to my link - and apparently several others - means a reader, as I did, has to check the surname of the author of the source, then find that name in your pet project of a "nice, tidy list". If it was all inline, it would just mean the references section took up a bit more space. The sources section is pointless. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 00:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

If I may just reiterate a point: The necessary links have not yet been added to the SFNs. Would it help if I provide a few, for demonstration purposes? May I also say that this is hardly a "pet project", but it is one that I have been working on, intermittently, for nine years now, without any input from other editors, which is something I think you ought to consider. In effect, you are now suddenly telling me that I have been wasting my time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, the length of time you have been working on it is not relevant. You are indicating that you feel you have some ownership of the style or content of the article. You don't. I am already familiar with the citation styles; the point here is that a massive alphabetical list of sources where the majority are cited once is completely pointless. No-one is going to read or peruse it. And no-one will refer it to unless they are forced to because you have removed the links inserted when inline citations were added. For that reason I am restoring the one I added so that it can be found and referenced easily. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 19:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

There may be something to what you say, that I do feel my investment of time and effort on this article gives me some right to defend my position. Did I accidentally remove the external link from the citation when I changed the style? If so, that was not intended. I normally include such things, which are not only useful but essential when the source is an entirely online one. Checking the article, I see that I did in fact include the link to that source, so your duplicate link is superfluous, per WP:OVERLINK. The point, however, is that there should be a single, uniform citation style, and the predominant one here is SFN. If you will permit me, as I suggested earlier, to add the link formats two or three SFNs, I believe you will be able to see for yourself that they work as well or even better than the full-footnote style you are advocating. I have refrained from making any such unagreed-on changes while this discussion is ongoing. I would expect you to observe the same restraint.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I should have been clearer; apologies for not having done so in prior comment. When I wrote 'links' I mean the direct hyperlink to the journal article, book, or web page, that appears in a tooltip-type box when moving the cursor or caret above the citation number. Other kinds of citation, even with links, would mean having to move to another part of the page before one can open the link. If there was some benefit from using the other citation style (as there is on technical articles w multiple citations of the same work), it would make sense. But there is no benefit, so no reason to do so. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 22:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe you are wrong about this. When the SFNs are properly linked to the reflist, hovering the cursor over the numeral in the text opens a small window with the link to the reflist displayed; continuing to hover on that link displays the direct hyperlink, with no need to go to any other part of the page. With your permission, I will insert such links to one or two of the existing SFNs as demonstration.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

You do not need my permission, and anyway I have no objection. I only object to: reversions on my edits adding sources when I have carefully explained the reasoning for the citation-type when re-editing, and asserting that SFN is predominant to add to your argument when it's quite plainly not. To return to the main issue, though, what benefit do you believe is gained from this more cumbersome style? And, please, "a nice neat list", of over a hundred sources, each cited once, is not in this category. Cambial Yellowing(❧) 23:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, but I do need your permission. When things like this are under discussion the rule, per WP:BRD, is to suspend editing on the disputed matter until it has been resolved. You needed my permission to revert once again to your preferred citation format, though you did not ask it, and I have not restored the status quo. Though I might have been justified in doing so, I prefer not to inflame matters further. You are wrong in calling SFN "cumbersome", as I think you will see when I have inserted a properly linked example or two. One benefit I have not so far mentioned is that it is a lot easier to see what sort of references are being used, when they are all in an orderly list. Anonymous blogs, for example, which are not regarded as reliable sources, will congregate together at or near the top of the list. These are commonly given in full-footnote style as a mere external link to a title, without mentioning an author's name, simply because there isn't one, but this is undetectable when half-a-dozen such sources are embedded in a list of footnotes that display in order of appearance in the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have now inserted two demonstration links to sources with embedded links pointing to external sites. These are Lopez and Marx 2004, and Lych 2014. Take a look at the entries in the list ("A Mix Tape", from Avenue Q, and "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" by Two Steps from Hell). Float your cursor over the ref number in each case, then glide up to the displayed reference, and again to the external link, all at the same place, no leaping about to other locations required. The hyperlinks do it all for you. Into the bargain, you may discover that there is a problem with the Lopez and Marx document.

While I am about it, I might as well also point out that this list is an appendix to the article proper. It is a very long appendix, to be sure, and this has attracted some criticism. I personally feel that it would be better split off into a separate List article or, better, that the really significant items be incorporated into the prose text, and the rest discarded as insignificant trivia.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely as regards the length of the list. What should remain in the article itself should be "list of notable compositions in x time", and their notability assessed by the same standards used for articles. Only those with proper sourcing should be included. Remainder can be spun off separately, but poorly sourced should be simply removed.

I referred to your preferred style using the comparative "more cumbersome", which is accurate given that a. it takes considerably more effort to write out (as evidenced by the fact you have not done any of the article that way yet despite how long you say you have been editing it) and b. one has to highlight the pop-up and then the popup within the pop-up for the source. Not much extra effort for the reader, you might argue, but why bother? The only feature of that citation style which you have called a benefit is that you say anonymous/poor sourcing will congregate at the top of the list. But the way to deal with citations which are not reliable sources is to simply remove them and their associated text, which should be done, not to make all the citations slightly more difficult to use in order to put the rubbish ones all in one place. The remaining list will be no more than a long list of fairly unknown authors with a single citation each. It will serve no-one except people who happen to really like alphabetical lists: that is not what Wikipedia is for. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not find that it takes any more effort to "write out" a bibliographic entry than it does to write exactly the same thing in a footnote. It certainly takes fewer keystrokes to type the SFN template than the "ref" markup. The main difference has to do with putting "ref=harv" into bibliographical template entries where that is not the default ("Cite book", "Cite web", etc.), or anchoring the source with a "wikicite" wrapper. What does take a lot of time (and this is what keeps wearing me down) is following links to inadequately identified online sources in order to find out whether or not they have got authors, years of publication, and so on, in order to properly identify them. I don't see how full-footnote references makes this any easier to do, but it can make them harder to see.

As for the bloated-list problem, how do you propose evaluating those items for notability? The mere fact that none of them seem important enough to mention in the text of the article could be cited as evidence that they are all non-notable. I have recently noticed one item in the "partially in ..." section that, notability aside, is not actually in septuple meter at all—it merely uses 7/8 bars as a convenience, regularly alternating with 4/4 in order to break up the visually awkward 15/8 metrical pattern. In this particular case, the cited source is a score, which makes it relatively easy to see. Other examples cite texts that may say something like "there are a few bars of 7/8 time". This may confirm the presence of a time signature, but does not actually verify use of septuple meter, which is quite a different thing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

You are still yet to suggest an actual benefit for this article of your preferred citation system.

Notability guidelines should be followed (composition is significant work from prominent composer; record is big-seller; record is nominated for major/significant award), and all entries with sources which are not scholarly removed. By scholarly in this context I mean academic sources, the score, or the musician(s) themselves. Cambial Yellowing❧ 11:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I have already mentioned a couple of benefits of SFNs, though they may have gotten lost in the lengthy discussion above. (1) They are more orderly than full footnotes, and (2) They tend much better to reveal unreliable sources. I have obliquely referred to another one, related to this last point, but will make it explicit now: Author-date formats, including SFNs, require at minimum the author's name and year of publication, or an acknowledgement of their absence. They also require, in the list of references, an article title and publisher. Too often, a "full footnote" reference has none of these things, but merely an external link, sometimes with a label which may or may not be the title of the article. In short, it is an open invitation to sloppy referencing.

I have absolutely no objection to your proposed methods for trimming the trivia list. I do have one question, though, about "records". I presume what you really mean is "popular music", since all sorts of music exists on records, including some of the important ethnic/regional varieties discussed in the article's text, very few of which would qualify as "big sellers" nor would likely have received or even been nominated for major/significant awards.

On the other hand, I would hope for some opinions from other editors on this subject, since you are the first editor to come along in nearly ten years now to seriously challenge what is going on here. We seem to be a mighty small consensus.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You say "(1) They are more orderly than full footnotes" - true in articles where sources from scholars in the field are cited multiple times. But that is not the case here; almost all sources are cited once, so the list you are seeking to create would simply repeat, in alphabetical order of mostly unknown authors, the information above it.

You say "(2) They tend much better to reveal unreliable sources"; that is not a benefit for the article. Unreliable sources are to be removed; they are not a reason to determine aspects of the article format.

Whether a citation has an author, title and publisher has nothing whatsoever to do with the use of inline referencing or any citation style. They are additional tags; they can (and should) be used in any style.

I do not mean popular music; I mean records, i.e. all records. I include the category of significant compositions by prominent composers, in any idiom. Cambial Yellowing❧ 17:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

On reflection, I suppose the genre does not make any difference for recordings. It is just that volume sales of records are very nearly a sole criterion for the notability popular music (including jazz), whereas they are of little importance where, say, Gilbert and Sullivan operettas or the piano music of Bartók is concerned, and of no use at all for the justification of including broad genres such as lakhon nok or rhythmic classifications such a rupak tala.

Why do you think your own arguments for full-footnotes are specific to this one article? More especially, once the long trivia list has been trimmed back to only truly notable examples (I would guess about ten items will remain), does that not affect the situation? I do see only four sources that are cited more than once (Read 1964, Powers and Widdess 2001, White 1979, and Bernstein 1994) all of which are in the main article space except the Bernstein which, as a score, would certainly be one of the savers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Nowhere have I stated or implied that my argument against your preferred citation style is "specific to this one article". Nor do I see how you have drawn that inference. Your statement that there are only four sources that are cited more than once supports the argument for inline citations.

Which of the entries in the list of compositions in septuple metre do you think are examples of lakhon nok or make use of rupak tala? Cambial Yellowing❧ 22:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There are currently 160 inline citations in the article. The question we are debating is not whether such citations are needed (we agree on that point, I hope), but rather what their format ought to be. You asked me for arguments addressed to advantages for the article. I presumed we were on a level playing field, so naturally assumed what was being required of me was also required of you. Where did I say any of the items in the trivia list were examples of lakhon nok or make use of rupak tala? I do recall saying that "records ... are of no use at all for the justification of including" broad genres or rhythmic classifications such as those. For such claims, reliable ("academic") sources must be cited (as they are in this case), regardless of the sales figures for or prizes awarded to recordings displaying examples of them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

My argument would apply to any article where the vast majority of sources are cited once and whose authors are not significant, and therefore producing an alphabetized list serves no purpose, as in this case. Short-form would also, as a side-effect, make the inline citations slightly more difficult to see at a glance and use.

We were discussing what criteria to use to reduce the 'list of compositions' to a 'list of notable compositions'. You brought up lakhon nok and rupak tala. I guess I fail to see the relevance. Cambial Yellowing❧ 23:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, I think I see what you are saying. I was reflecting on whether it really mattered whether "recording" referred mainly to "popular music" or not. The criteria you cite for judging the notability of recordings are used principally in the field of popular music. They are commercial criteria, and are not relevant to traditional music genres (such as lakhon nok) or technical musical terms like rupak tala. The former is part of the cultural heritage of Thailand, and it is therefore not valid to judge it by whether or not some recording or other has made huge amounts of money for a recording company, or even whether any of it has ever been recorded at all; the latter is a rhythmic cycle used in music of the the Indian subcontinent, and no doubt has occurred in thousands of performances in the largely improvised music of that region. As a basic element of a broad musical style, it can hardly be "recorded" except in the context of its use in a particular piece or performance. So, by all means broaden the possible use of recordings to establish the notability of examples from any and all styles of music (not just popular music), so long as there is no requirement of citing a platinum disc to justify inclusion of whole genres or treasured monuments of cultures who may not put a monetary value on what they hold in esteem. I hope that helps clarify what I am trying to say.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I understand where the confusion has arisen. I should have been more specific in the bracket in which I mentioned three criteria. What I meant in that sentence "(composition is significant work from prominent composer; record is big-seller; record is nominated for major/significant award)" [11:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)]: is that if a piece of music fulfils any one of the three it should be included. I did not mean that it must fulfil all three to be included. That said, I do not believe there are examples of either of the genres you describe currently in the list (though as I said in last comment am happy to be corrected), so the point regarding those seems moot. Cambial Yellowing❧ 00:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Quite so. I am thinking of this as an article, which happens to have a (largely irrelevant and overly long) list tacked on at the end. I see that you were talking only about that list, whereas I was referring to items discussed in the actual article. I think we are in complete agreement on this point, at least.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Jerome Kohl, in order to resolve what we left unresolved on Halloween last year, I propose that the prose section (i.e. the first 80% of the article) uses CMOS - with anchors. The list section, whose citations are almost all obscure or anonymous, to use inline. This means that the list of sources used for the prose section will not be filled up (and made overlong and useless) with references to obscure or anonymous sources, each used once only, from the list section. Cambial Yellowing❧ 16:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Two different citation styles in one and the same article is contrary to WP:CITESTYLE, which says "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." I think the best (perhaps the only) way of resolving this conflict would be to split off the trivia list into its own list article. A "See also" note could be left in this article, pointing to that list. The citations in the trivia list will still need to be made consistent, since they currently involve at least five different styles, including 39 SFNs, one parenthetical Harvard citation embedded in a footnote, a bare external link, and an embedded YouTube link, out of a total 146 footnotes. I do not envy whoever takes charge of this transfer, since I remember all too well trying to rescue many of the citations when this article was split off from the List of musical works in unusual time signatures.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

You are entirely correct, two styles in one article is against CITESTYLE. As you say, one solution is to split off the list into a separate article, with a link. However, one thing on which we agreed above was that the list is in need of heavy trimming (of poor citations, self-promotion, etc.); I have done about 80% of the top section but not even started on the second (longer) section. After trimming obscure and poorly-sourced entries, the list will be shorter - possibly too short to justify a separate article.

By keeping the list section in full format and the prose section in CMOS /SFN, the list of sources for the prose section, which includes several notable authors and scholars, will be kept free of the detritus of anonymous, obscure or corporate authors which are used for the list section. Hence it will restore the usefulness of the list of sources which you put the case for above. As you say, this is contrary to CITESTYLE, but in the spirit of WP:IAR, I suggest we do so anyway. Cambial Yellowing❧ 18:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Clickable SFNs

I've recently added proper {{sfn}} code to all short citations. I did not change the citation style. Using SFN templates adds easier navigation between a citation's appeareance in "References" and the full citation in "Sources". There's no downside. Those additions were all removed today, giving WP:CITEVAR as a reason. Those edits did not change the article's established citation style, they made it easier to use. In fact, Jerome Kohl demonstrated the better functionality in October with "Lopez and Marx 2004". Even after today's wholesale removal, there are still three other SFNs in the article. Clickable SFNs are an improvement, and they should be restored. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Despite your claim to the contrary, a very brief glance showed that the citation style was most definitely changed in multiple instances. You cannot be unaware of this. That is why your edit was and is reverted. The prose section currently uses CMOS. In making some headway on cleaning up the list section (removing completely obscure works and unreliable citations) it has largely been converted to inline, given the nature of the list of citations used (none used more than once). Cambial Yellowing❧ 14:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

All of the footnotes are inline citations. I think you mean to say "full footnote" citations, and indeed that format is slightly dominant (though not overwhelmingly so) in the references for the trivia list, though even within that general category there are inconsistencies.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Cambial Yellowing, can you point out where I changed the citation style? I did change it once, Saull 2015, which consisted of two identical inline citations with different page numbers – much better dealt with using short citation. All other changes only replaced plain text short citations with clickable links, which assist readers navigating between "References" and "Sources". This is very similar to the related article Quintuple meter. In the process, I also corrected several instances that didn't conform with MOS:NUMRANGE, added links for authors and journals, and dropped uncited works. How is that not an improvement of the article? Where is the consensus for your reversal? I suggest you revert your reversal. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is the cumbersome duplicate citation of Saull 2015, as reverted to by Cambial Yellowing twice (here and here), preferable to a combined citation? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps User:Cambial Yellowing would like to explain?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

There is little to explain. Despite the ruling which I pointed and linked to, you insisted on (by your own account): changing the citation style; denying that you had; changed it again; denied that you had; asked me for examples of where you had changed it; then admitted you had changed it and gave examples. The premise of your question, "cumbersome duplicate" does not exist - there is nothing cumbersome about the style used - so it cannot be answered. What is cumbersome is the addition of a short summary of every individual source in the list of musical examples, along with a list at the bottom of the 100 or so sources used for that section, which serves no purpose, but does make the source less easily visible, as already outlined above. Cambial Yellowing❧ 13:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

So when you twice mass-reverted (without edit summary), you did it because the citation style of Saull 2015 had been changed? Are you aware of WP:ONLYREVERT and WP:MASSR? Pointing out your concerns, and connection, about Saull 2015 could have saved much time. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Which style?

I'm a bit baffled by the style used in the "Sources" section. It employs this format: (For demonstartion purposes, I've used |ref=none to disable warning messages here.)

• Last, First. YYYY. Title, additional details. Place: Publisher.
• Holst, Gustav. 1977. A Choral Fantasia, Op. 51, edited by Imogen Holst. London, Zürich, Mainz, and New York: Ernst Eulenburg Ltd.

Other examples:

• Chianis, Sotirios, and Rudolph M. Brandl. 2001. "Greece, §IV: Traditional Music". The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, second edition, edited by Stanley Sadie and John Tyrrell. London: Macmillan Publishers.
• Sadie, Stanley. 1965. "Chichester: Southern Cathedrals Festival". The Musical Times 106, no. 1471 (September): 693–94.

I'm not very experienced in citation styles, and I can't figure out which exact style is being used here. It has been pointed out above that clickable anchors from the "References" section into the "Sources" section via {{sfn}} would be an improvement and should be used. I suggest this would be much simpler to implement for interested editors if the templates for sources provided by Wikipedia would be used. For example, using {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}}, the above list entries would look like this:

• Holst, Gustav (1977). Imogen Holst (ed.). A Choral Fantasia, Op. 51. London, Zürich, Mainz, New York: Ernst Eulenburg Ltd.
• Chianis, Sotirios; Brandl, Rudolph M. (2001). "Greece, §IV: Traditional Music". In Stanley Sadie; John Tyrrell (eds.). The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (second ed.). London: Macmillan Publishers.
• Sadie, Stanley (September 1965). "Chichester: Southern Cathedrals Festival". The Musical Times. 106 (1471): 693–694.

This formal approach would give a consistent presentation and be easier for others to expand. I'm not suggesting that the "Sources" ought to be changed to that format right away, but that such changes would be tolerated if new sources are added, or if someone decides to take up the challenge mentioned above of adding {{sfn}}s. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The format you describe is an author-date format recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style (short description in the online edition here). Amongst other differences from the one used for the Wikipedia templates, it (1) in the case of multiple authors inverts only the first name and separates subsequent names by commas rather than semicolons, (2) does not surround the year of publication in brackets, (3) in collective works, gives the editor's name following the title, (4) for journals, presents the volume number following the journal title without separating punctuation or the abbreviation "vol." or "v." and in normal type (not boldface), and uses the convention "no. X" for issue numbers within a volume, followed where appropriate by the month(s) or season(s) of that issue in round brackets, and (5) in case there is no month or season, gives the inclusive page numbers of the article without a space following the colon after the issue or volume number. It is the format that I follow by preference when creating articles, or when adding a list of references to an article lacking citations.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I realize CMOS is valid format, but there doesn't seem to be a citation template on Wikipedia implementing it. This prevents editors with limited knowledge of CMOS' finer points adding conforming citations. It's not a show stopper, and I'm not proposing to change it here, it's just a hurdle I'd prefer not to have to jump. The point above at #Clickable SFNs is much more important. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome. And I agree 1000%—no, make that 10000% about clickable SFNs.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)