Talk:Swing rhythm

There are several other articles on this subject already, and several different POVs. See the See also list in the article.

Let's try to keep this article simple and accurate, and dare I say NPOV. There may be room for some merges, or it may be that the subject is so complex that we need them all. But somewhere we need a relatively simple article IMO, as it's a topic that even some experts get wrong. Andrewa 19:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I see User:Hyacinth has now redirected this page to the article Swung note, an article on which he has previously worked and that he has also reverted my edit there.

However, he seems to have made no attempt to merge the content to any other article, nor to contact me on my talk page, at Talk:Swung note or here.

See User:Andrewa/swing rhythm for the latest version of this content, a few small but IMO significant improvements, more may follow. Andrewa 03:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now of archival interest only, as the material has been copied back to the article, see below. I'll delete it if and when the dust clears, which doesn't look like being any time soon, see further below... Andrewa 23:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to contact Hyacinth, but he has a notice on both his user and user talk pages reading I currently am broke and staying with relatives and have limited access to computers. Thus I am not currently engaged in any disputes or collaborative efforts. I would recommend contacting another administrator for administrative assistance. Presumably, he regards this as a particularly important issue to do the revert and redirect that he has.

I was trying to be NPOV and gentle, but all the musicians I discuss this with say the same thing: In practice, swing rhythm is triplets, and there are two ways of writing it. That's what the deleted content was attempting to say in an NPOV and understandable manner.

I accept that some musicians and many musicologists do say what Hyacinth is saying, but there's a much simpler explanation too. As far as I can see the whole concept of a swung note as he describes it is a minority view. It is a valid view, and should be described in Wikipedia. But we should also describe swing time and swing rhythm as more normally understood. Andrewa 19:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also user:andrewa/swing rhythm, a temporary page which I have created so as to be able to work on the article while we sort this out. Andrewa 20:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this could happen all in one article? Hyacinth 22:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Wikipedia:Point of view and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I don't see how we have that conflict yet, all I see is a problem with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Hyacinth 22:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with those project pages, and glad to see that you are also aware of them. See also comment below. Andrewa 00:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One point I'd like to clarify: The difference between time and rhythm.

Time strictly refers to a time signature, that is the way the music is written. So, if we're refering to a particular piece of recorded music, we often say it's in swing time, but strictly speaking we shouldn't. What we are hearing is the rhythm. We don't know whether it is written in compound time such as 6/8 and played exactly as written, or whether it is written in say 2/4 time and played with a swing. They will sound identical.

This distinction is only really important in the case of swing time/rhythm, as it's the only common case of the time signature not matching the rhythm. And, as you would expect, not everyone approves of this way of writing (or playing) music!

IMO Wikipedia can and should have a simple article which avoids these complications as much as possible, accessible to the layman. That's what I was trying to do here. But, when writing such an aricle, we should be aware of the precise meanings of the terminology, and use it consistently. Andrewa 20:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we can make this all comprehensible to a non-musician when many musicians are unclear about it, I can't say.

Swing rhythm is not necessary the same as triplet (or 6/8). Any jazz theory book will tell you that the difference in length between the longer note and the shorter note depends on the tempo and on the style of the player. In this way it is similar to notes inégales. Sometimes transcriptions of jazz intended for clueless non-jazzers do write it out as triplets, but that shouldn't be taken as definitive. I've never heard the term "swing time." The style of swing, however, might be construed to mean more than unequal eighth notes, which is what distinguishes it from, say a gigue: syncopated accents, for example.

I agree with Hyacinth that Swing rhythm and Swung note should be the same article. I agree that there is valuable content in your former version of this article. I haven't yet looked at the versions of Swung note that you say were reverted. I will in the next day or two. Do give Hyacinth time to respond, though; according to his user page he's unemployed and had his computer repossessed and has only spotty Internet access. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a jazz player, I'm trying to imagine a 4/4 jazz song transcribed into 6/8 (or 12/8). It would be fundamentally different, and I think the reason is that when you swing a duple meter, the stress falls on the second (shorter) eighth note of each pair, whereas in 6/8 the stresses fall on 1 and 4. It's true that sometimes pieces are transcribed that way (or with triplets) with added accents, but that's more of an artifice; they're not essentially the same thing, as you assert. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to see the results of merging the (former) content from swing rhythm with that from swung note. For the moment I've made one little change to the content of the swing rhythm article, see User:Andrewa/swing rhythm, clarifying swing time.

Is there anything in my version of the swing rhythm article that you think is wrong? It doesn't say that swing rhythm (or swing time) is always triplets, I was very careful of that. That's shuffle rhythm. My personal POV is that they do mean the same thing in practice, but that's a POV and I was trying very hard to avoid it.

IMO we need to describe both views. That's going to be a bit tricky, which is why I think we want two articles, one approachable by the layman, the other going into as much technical detail as we are capable of writing. Andrewa 00:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we need both a simpler and a more involved discussion of the topic, but the usual WP way is to put the simple explanation up top, then expand expert detail in lower sections. I'm looking forward to contributing to this article in the next day or two. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You do make an excellent point above regarding the accent on the second part of the beat being an essential part of swing feel (and of shuffle for that matter). See User:Andrewa/swing rhythm for my attempt to incorporate the point you have made.

However, I have also been doing some googling, and some more talking around working musicians, and I find no support at all for your contention that all musicians think that swing may be ratios other than 1:2, that is can be other than strict triplets. This is certainly one point of view, and its proponents (surprise surprise) tend to say that theirs is the only correct view. But there is another that swing means triplets, and again (surprise surprise surprise) those who hold this view seem to think that theirs is the only correct view. My advice is still that we need to present both views. That is NPOV.

Nat Gonella, Freddy Gardner (soloists in Studies in Swing numbers 1-4, 1927) and Gene Krupa all played consistent and strict triplet swing. This needs a mention, even if more recent jazz musicians have sought to broaden the term.

So far as one article or two goes, IMO it can work either way. My only concern is that we do have an article on swing rhythm that has an introduction accessible to the layperson. At the moment we don't, and I think this is a shame, especially as I have written such an article only to see its content summarily removed.

I'd caution against redirecting swing time or swing rhythm to swung note. Many working swing musicians, let alone swing band and ballroom dancing enthusiasts, have never heard the term swung note. Also, the relationship of a swung note to a musical metre is already esoteric. We should use one of the more common terms for the title if the articles must be merged. Andrewa 03:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that Swing rhythm should be the primary article name. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that has just occurred to me... I am talking about rhythms and time signatures when I say that there's a school of thought (of which I admit to being part) that says that swing means triplets, compound time, ratio of 2:1 etc.. I'm not for one moment extending this to individual notes. Perhaps this is the problem? Perhaps the larger ratios quoted in the swung note article occur as individual notes, either repeated in a more complex rhythmic sequence than those used in the swing era (which have certainly occured in jazz since then), or even isolated? If so, then that would be an excellent reason for leaving the the detail of the swung note article in its own article, and might even solve a mystery. Just a thought. Andrewa 06:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't hear much about larger ratios, but rather smaller ones such as 3:2. These typically occur in very fast tempos -- the faster the tempo, the closer to straight eighths. But I'm fine with relegating this to a smaller section within an article which mainly presents the 2:1 ratio. See [1] , [2]. I'm going to fight against equating it with compound meter, though, which has a very different feel.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that not all compound meter is swing, this was a point you made before and is well made, swing also has a distinctive accent. Agree that post-swing era jazz players have broadened the term swing to mean something a lot more general than compound metre with this accent, at least in their own minds. But even here I preach caution.

These are excellent links, which I have added to User:Andrewa/swing_rhythm#External links. I found Marc Sabatella's swing definition particularly interesting. I wonder what would happen if we put trigger pads on the kit of a competent (i.e. recognised as such in the style by those who like it - I don't claim to qualify!) drummer playing along with a Dexter Gordon recording, and had a look at the midi output? But more important, as a sax player Gordon's phrasing is far more about individual notes than about the metre, which brings us back to the possibility that we are talking about two different things... perhaps Gordon is playing swung notes within a metre that is still triplets? Freddy Gardner (alto and tenor sax) certainly and very obviously did that back in 1927, but drummer Jock Jacobson is strict triplets under it. This is verging on original research now, but I think my understanding is improving.

I'm not comfortable with your distinction between individual notes and overall feel; I've never heard or read anyone use the term "swing" to refer to that kind of tempo variation, although of course rubato is a feature of all musical styles except pure electronica. But I'm sure there is research which has analyzed recordings of jazz to determine the exact ratio of swung notes. It's just not on the net; we'll have to do some library research. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Andrewa 21:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When some of the dust settles, we should also do something about the shuffle rhythm article, which isn't consistent with the swung note article. Much the same issues. But let's get one good article sorted out before deleting any more content. Andrewa 06:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. From an experiential standpoint the "shuffle" feels more "lazy" than swing, but whether that translates into more or less than an exact 2:1 I can't say. The first reference above calls shuffle an "exaggerated" swing, presumably a larger ratio. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I preach caution. Is this exaggerated feel timing, or accent? Is it metre, or individual notes? Andrewa 18:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't a clue what he meant, just a guess. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still thinking about the reference, in an external link cited above, to Dexter Gordon as an example of a player of non-triplet swing. Perhaps it's significant that he's one of the key people in bebop? See User:Andrewa/swing rhythm#Exactly what is swing? (old version) for some thoughts. Andrewa 21:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G'day again Wahoofive, I like your refactor of the article in my temporary page. My one reservation is that I think that with a swing and a couple of similar phrases should occur either in the introduction or TOC, to serve as unastonishing targets for the redirects.

Perhaps it is now time to move this content back to the article namespace? As you and I are the only editors of the temporary version, I'd be quite happy for you to copy-and-paste it. If others start to edit my temporary copy, issues of history and GFDL compliance become a bit more complicated. Not insurmountable, but probably an unnecessary complication. Or, I can do this if you prefer and are happy for me to, but I think the history differences will work better if you do it.

I think we have agreed that the redirect from swing rhythm to swung note is inappropriate, so the sooner this is fixed the sooner the encyclopedia will be that much better. Content in my user pages and/or the article history isn't part of the current encyclopedia of course, and of very limited use to those who reference it. Copying the content back would also fix a couple of double redirects that User:Hyacinth left outstanding, and which it seemed silly to fix when IMO the new version of these redirects would have been both temporary and wrong.

There is still work to do, but that should take place in the main article space unless there is some good reason not to, and I can't think of one. I think I've now been quite patient enough for purposes of harmonious editing. Andrewa 01:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but I suggest we hold off on redirecting Swung note until we've worked a little more on this one. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Andrewa 09:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's starting to look good IMO!

I'm a little nervous that we don't now have any link from swing rhythm to swung note, even in see also. I'm still not convinced that a merge is going to work, and until it happens we should have a link IMO.

Interested to see what the results are of the library research referred to above. The term swung note is not in my normal vocabulary, but I think I see what it means, and if I'm correct it deserves an article of its own IMO. Andrewa 21:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and re-add Swung note if you want. I was assuming we were going to merge them shortly so it wouldn't be necessary.—Wahoofive (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ISTM that the concept of a swung note is probably derived from that of swing rhythm, but that they are significantly different concepts. Andrewa 09:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The beat is divided unequally in a lilting fashion that implies three, rather than two subunits, though the subdivision is executed with such flexibility and variety as to give only an impression (and not an exact statement) of these values. The way in which the beat is subdivided in swing rhythms is exceedingly complex and may change constantly ....since they defy precise notation, swing eighth-notes are variously represented as shown:

graphic showing straight eighths, dotted-eighth-sixteenth, triplets, 12/8 time

From the article Transcription: Western notation is weak in its ability to represent the rhythms and timbres of jazz. Thomas Owens (1974) ...found... many complex details of pitch, rhythms, and vibrato...Many notes were of lengths for which we have no symbols (e.g. 15th notes and 19th notes).

Admittedly he was analyzing Charlie Parker, not the most straightforward of players. Several other examples were provided of researchers who couldn't pin down the rhythmic elements. (—Wahoofive (talk))

Interesting. Yes, there's a lot that you can't specify on a chart. Please sign your posts on talk pages. Andrewa 06:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for now signing the above post. Andrewa 18:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to A Jazz Lexicon by Robert S. Gould (1964, but there's also a newer edition), the word "swing" as a verb didn't come into wide usage in the jazz sense until around 1935, although as a noun it was used at least since 1888, generally as a synonym for jazz, or the general "feel" of jazz. Even after the verb usage came in, it was used with a variety of meanings, not necessarily even regarding performance technicalities (let alone rhythm specifically). Gould's book provides multiple citations. (—Wahoofive (talk))

Interesting. But the word swing was used for a rhythm before that, see my latest contribution at Studies in Swing. Andrewa 07:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what you're seeing on that page. "Swing" seems to be used as a genre there. —Wahoofive (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that swing rhythm is a feature of the swing genre. It's certainly a feature of these recordings. Andrewa 04:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some discussion as to whether the article should start In music... or In jazz..., see User talk:Andrewa#Swing rhythm. There seems to be a consensus that the term is used outside of jazz too, although it's intimately concerned with jazz. So, shouldn't the article start more generally? Comments please. Andrewa 18:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I changed it to "jazz" myself, I'd be fine with changing it back to "music", as long as there's some reference to jazz somewhere in the opening paragraph intro, since that's its principal home. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sort of. The wikilink to jazz is now in the opening sentence of the second paragraph of two, not the first, with the TOC then following. I think this actually gives more emphasis and focus on the jazz connection than if the link was buried in a longer first paragraph. But if you like, we can just remove the paragraph break, and the wikilink to jazz will then be in the first paragraph. Andrewa 23:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another go at it, now three paragraphs, starting in turn In music..., In Jazz..., and In dance music....

Good.—Wahoofive (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking your word for it that this convention (interpretive device) is assumed for all written jazz.

Not necessarily: slow ballads (Laura) are often played straight and so are very fast bebop tunes (Giant Steps). It's possible for a player to convert one style into another: some tunes which started life as ballads are often played in swing style (My Romance). What's "assumed" for written jazz is that the player is free to interpret it as s/he wishes. How about "may be applied" instead of "is assumed" in that sentence? —Wahoofive (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have misunderstood you. On my talk page, talking about the Mediem swing direction on the Satin Doll chart, you said Strayhorn wouldn't have felt the need to write such a thing down. I've had a go at fixing my mistake, but if you can be explicit as to when swing is and isn't assumed in jazz, that would be a lot better. Andrewa 03:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz isn't like that. It doesn't have rules. We won't be able to pin down exactly when it is used and when not, and nothing in the notation or even context will tell us. Strayhorn would have assumed people would absorb the style by listening. This is the meaning of It Don't Mean a Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing. But he meant the entire feel of jazz, not just the notes inégales. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way it looks to you, and it's true of current and the most recent jazz, certainly. But so far as swing era and earlier jazz is concerned, we can see what they played to some extent, even if the players themselves weren't aware of the rules they were following when they created it. The trick here is again to avoid straying into original research. Note that there's no problem using some primary sources, such as the recordings themselves.

And so far as dance music is concerned there are rules! Here's a question for you: If I front up to play at a ball, wedding or such, as part of a quartet, consisting of me, a pianist, a string bass and a lead player (either flute/reeds or trumpet/flugel generally, but I do know an awesome trombone/vocal), and we provide quickstep (mainly), foxtrot, jive, cha-cha-cha, rhumba, samba, straight rock or whatever else they request, based on standards, whatever charts someone (normally the soloist or pianist) produces, and again whatever they ask for and at least one of us knows (normally again piano or solo so they can teach us the tune, but I have been known to scribble out a chord chart and sing a verse to get us started in desperation), none of this practice before nonsense just a playlist which is subject to change at any moment until we thank them for coming, once through straight, solo, piano solo, second solo, whatever other solos we feel, hot verse (probably regular back beat splash cymbal on the last line) to finish: Is that jazz? The paying public call it jazz! Andrewa 16:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced we quite have swing time right yet. Surely as technical terms, swing time would refer to the method of writing the music, while swing rhythm would refer instead to the result as played? But that's the opposite of the way the article now reads. On the other hand, swing time is something many people who don't read music at all would think they could recognise. Difficult. Is it possible that the jazz fraternity and the dance fraternity use the words in exactly opposite senses? This wouldn't be the first time something like this had happened in music, see vibrato unit. Andrewa 01:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think of "swing rhythm" as a way of interpreting the written notation, but there may be other interpretations. I know nothing about its meaning in dance. I've never heard the term "swing time"; apparently what you mean by it is "written-out swing" in which Satin Doll would be written out in 12/8. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swing time is going to be a more difficult thing possibly. It's a common enough phrase, see Swing Time and many other references. I started out with the swing rhythm article because I thought it would be the easiest to fix!!! Some of the 78s I've seen have also mentioned Swing style... Andrewa 03:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Swing style" could refer to Swing music. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It could. I want to check a friend's 78 rpm record collection to see the dates on some of the labels, if they have them. My impression is that swing style predates the swing era proper. Andrewa 16:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eeek! That was a bit of an omission! Fixed I think! Andrewa 21:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! —Wahoofive (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a bit of a struggle, but I think we're getting there. Thanks for your refactors and other input. Andrewa 03:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While swung note is obviously related to swing rhythm, I can see several reasons not to merge the articles. Some of these are mentioned above, but I'll collect them all here.

• Neither topic is a subset of the other. Swung notes can occur as part of a riff, as part of a rhythm, or they can also appear in a solo passage without any regular repetition. Swing rhythm, on the other hand, is far more than just a sequence of swung notes.

• The usage of the term swung note is fairly restricted compared to that of swing rhythm, and those who use the term swung note would in general want a far more technical, even pedantic, treatment than most of those who use the term swing rhythm.

• Lastly, there's a lot more controversy surrounding the concept of a swung note than swing rhythm.

The proposer of the merge has not provided any reasons for it, and I would be interested to discuss them. Andrewa 23:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There may well be differences between these two concepts, but the magnitude to which they are related leaves me to believe a single article would be best. All the above could be explained in the article. There must be a proper discussion of the differences between a swing rhythm and a swung note. The best place for this would be in a single article, rather than duplicating stuff. Furthermore, both articles sizes are not so large as to restrict a merger.TreveX^talk 23:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewa, you and I have a definite difference in vocabulary here. For one thing, there's a decided difference between rhythm and meter. A single swung note is certainly part of a rhythm, therefore of a swing rhythm. But your constant references to "swing time" lead me to believe you're referring to something in reference to "meter". Still, as TreveX points out, they're closely interrelated; you can only explain swing "meter" as a succession of swung notes. Furthermore, I can't imagine talking about a performance in otherwise straight time, for example of Mozart (or even Gershwin), and referring to a single note as "swung"; the term only has meaning against a background meter which implies swinging.—Wahoofive (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So have a go at a merge. Nobody is stopping you. I've always said I'd be interested to see the results. My knowledge of swung notes is mainly from the article, I'd never heard the term before and I'm still trying to understand what it means, and I admit that. As long as the information I've contributed remains reasonably accessible and understandable, I'll have no complaints whatsoever.

I do complain when people rush straight to reverting content, or even adding merge notices, in situations that blind freddy can see are contentious, and make no attempt to use the procedures we have to deal with these situations... of which the talk page is probably the most important. I waited several days before even commenting on this merge proposal, you will notice, to see whether any reasons would be posted.

Agree there's a difference between rhythm and meter, but for my money they're far closer concepts than swung note is to either swing rhythm or swing time.

I'm afraid I think the claim that you can only explain swing "meter" as a succession of swung notes is POV, and a key issue. This implies that I and most other swing musicians and fans don't really understand swing, which may well be the honest opinion of some. But by far the most common understanding of swing (both historically and currently) does not involve the concept of a swung note at all, and I think it's a valid viewpoint.

I'm still interested to see your merge attempt. It has been discussed several times now. As I have said before, there's a time for action.

Swing time is another important topic, which I think deserves an article on its own too. I don't think a certain amount of duplication hurts in an encyclopedia, in fact where two very similar but significantly different concepts are involved, excessive use of redirects and merges to eliminate this duplication is the enemy of clarity and understanding IMO. Andrewa 03:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) It's now been redirected back to swung note. No discussion here, no consensus, it just happened a few weeks ago. This time at least there's some attempt at a merge. I've now raised it at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Swing time etc, please comment there. Andrewa 23:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As there was little interest shown at the pump, I'm going to go along with the redirect, and just rework the intro so that the many (inappropriate IMO) redirects to swung note are accomodated according to the principle of least astonishment. See this old version of the archive for what discussion there was. Andrewa 19:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]