Talk:Music Theory/Rhythm

This article is horrible. Since when are eighth notes "Uncommon"? I'm a full time Music student, so I will try and help improve this when I get a chance, but I won't have too much time. I'll need to make an account first though... (Owen) The small hours of the morning, 25th November 2007

And an arsis would be what exactly? Same goes for thesis....ok a conductor goes down on one and up on the other...what's the significance? Is it just an arbitrary convention or are the terms descriptive of something that is causal of the conductor's up/down preferences? Maybe I'm just stupid or something, but everything about the 'sub-beats' is incomprehensible to me....have those contributing considered running it by someone who doesn't understand music/music theory, and plays no instrument because I'm thinking maybe the text makes sense only to those who already understand what it is supposed to explain...?


 * Since you are self professed as to not understanding music, would you be willing to continue to ask the sorts of questions you've already asked, or would it be too frustrating of a venture for you (which is understandable)? -- Jason C Daniels 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, since you've got no "official" understanding of music theory, are you willing to accept as valid, a Wikibook that links to the more elementary concepts for which the author assumes the reader has knowledge? -- Jason C Daniels 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be wise to include African and world rhythm systems, along with the classical rhythm system?


 * I agree that some discussion of this is warranted for a detailed understanding of rhythm. However, the originator of the book states an intent to cover western styles of music. So the question to the modules author is: "Is this the proper module for a discussion on African and other non-western rhythms?" -- Jason C Daniels 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is horribly written and also completely wrong in places... the author obviously has no clue of the difference between simple and compound; and duple triple and quadruple. I want to give anyone the chance to discuss it first before editing it however... --Ross angus 02:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please rephrase your concerns in a manner that follows the etiquette standards for Wikibooks. Also, please provide the correct information for the points where the author is mistaken. -- Jason C Daniels 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to participate in improving the quality of the book. However, before I do, I have some requests of those who also seem to want the same.


 * When engaging in discussion, follow the rules of etiquette outlined for Wikibooks.


 * When you have better knowledge than what is currently in the book, please either make the edits when it is clear that no one will be mad, or post your proposed edits here on the discussion page.


 * Regardless if cited within module for the book, when there is dispute over a fact, lets be professional and bring relevant sources to the table. It may be that there is a legitimate dispute in the industry.  It may be that someone misread an article.  Unless we have the same information to work from it is unlikely that the dispute will ever be resolved.

-- Jason C Daniels 22:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please sign your comments. It's difficult, though not impossible, to discuss items with anonymous parties.

I propose that when discussing how to change this module, that we break our conversations off into two major categories, and further subcategories as needed. The two major discussion categories that I propose are listed below. Please provide feedback on my suggestions. -- Jason C Daniels 23:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Module Content Discussion.
 * This category of discussion will encompass all things content related. The list includes but should not be limited to technical accuracy, grammar and spelling, proposals for adding or removing specific verbiage, images, or other content. This is where sources should be cited.  I expect this to be the area where most discussion happens in the early part of a modules development. -- Jason C Daniels 23:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Module Format Discussion.
 * This category will contain discussions pertinent only to presenting the information contained within the module. My initial gut feel on viable subjects for format include:  If the content and title of the section are reflective of each other.  "Copy Editor" type discussions such as if it appropriate to rearrange certain words, phrases, sentences or paragraphs; if the language used is the best to convey the intended meaning, for the intended audience...etc  I expect this to be where most discussion happens when as a module reaches maturity. -- Jason C Daniels 23:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)