"Irrational" Time Signatures - Revision history

Lattaio Meimnagaan JS at 12:47, 12 July 2026

2026-07-12T12:47:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:47, 12 July 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:NOT irrational non dyadic time signature.png\|thumb\|NOT irrational non dyadic time signature]][[File:Non dyadic time signature explanation.png\|thumb\|Non dyadic time signature explanation]]		[[File:NOT irrational non dyadic time signature.png\|thumb\|NOT irrational non dyadic time signature]][[File:Non dyadic time signature explanation.png\|thumb\|Non dyadic time signature explanation]]
	'''"Irrational time signatures"''' is a popular (and inaccurate) name for '''non-dyadic time signatures''' amongst Classical and J*zz musicians.		'''"Irrational time signatures"''' is a popular (and inaccurate) name for '''non-dyadic time signatures''' amongst Classical and J*zz musicians.
	'''Irrational numbers''' (ex. √2, π) are numbers that can't be expressed as a ratio of two integers. In other words, they're numbers that you '''can't write as a fraction'''. At least that's what it used to mean before Classical musicians took that meaning and threw it out the window when they redefined them as “Numbers that describe rhythms that make me feel uncomfortable”.

	Non-dyadic time signatures are time signatures with a bottom number that isn’t a power of 2, which means that '''non-dyadic tuplets (broken tuplets)''' are a necessary component of them. Wherever there's a non-dyadic time signature, you'll also find a non-dyadic tuplet (and vice versa). ~~Some have speculated that the scary nickname~~ Classical musicians gave to “irrational” time signatures reflects their inability to play tuplets correctly. What’s the point of calling it something more accurate if it’s going to sound like sh*t regardless?		'''Irrational numbers''' (ex. √2, π) are numbers that can't be expressed as a ratio of two integers. In other words, they're numbers that you '''can't write as a fraction'''. At least that's what it used to mean before Classical musicians with fragile minds took that meaning and threw it out the window when they redefined them as “Numbers that describe rhythms that make me feel uncomfortable”.

			Non-dyadic time signatures are time signatures with a bottom number that isn’t a power of 2, which means that '''non-dyadic [[tuplets]] (broken tuplets)''' are a necessary component of them. Wherever there's a non-dyadic time signature, you'll also find a non-dyadic tuplet (and vice versa). Classical musicians gave to “irrational” time signatures reflects their inability to play tuplets correctly. What’s the point of calling it something more accurate if it’s going to sound like sh*t regardless?

	Regular time signatures allow you to write bars whose length is any combination of whole-notes, half-notes, quarter-notes, etc., but non-dyadic time signatures allow you to write bars whose length is any fraction of a whole note. Fractions… weren't we talking about those things earlier? Oh right.		Regular time signatures allow you to write bars whose length is any combination of whole-notes, half-notes, quarter-notes, etc., but non-dyadic time signatures allow you to write bars whose length is any fraction of a whole note. Fractions… weren't we talking about those things earlier? Oh right.

	''Disclaimer: It's appropriate to call a non-dyadic time signature "irrational" if there's an actual irrational number in it.''		''Disclaimer: It's appropriate to call a non-dyadic time signature "irrational" if there's an actual irrational number in it.''
			See also : [[Time Complexity Bias]]
	[[Category:Music Theory]]		[[Category:Music Theory]]

Fizzwikiadmin at 06:30, 7 June 2026

2026-06-07T06:30:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:30, 7 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:Non dyadic time signature explanation.png\|thumb\|Non dyadic time signature explanation]]		[[File:NOT irrational non dyadic time signature.png\|thumb\|NOT irrational non dyadic time signature]][[File:Non dyadic time signature explanation.png\|thumb\|Non dyadic time signature explanation]]
	'''"Irrational time signatures"''' is a popular (and inaccurate) name for '''non-dyadic time signatures''' amongst Classical and J*zz musicians.		'''"Irrational time signatures"''' is a popular (and inaccurate) name for '''non-dyadic time signatures''' amongst Classical and J*zz musicians.
	'''Irrational numbers''' (ex. √2, π) are numbers that can't be expressed as a ratio of two integers. In other words, they're numbers that you '''can't write as a fraction'''. At least that's what it used to mean before Classical musicians took that meaning and threw it out the window when they redefined them as “Numbers that describe rhythms that make me feel uncomfortable”.		'''Irrational numbers''' (ex. √2, π) are numbers that can't be expressed as a ratio of two integers. In other words, they're numbers that you '''can't write as a fraction'''. At least that's what it used to mean before Classical musicians took that meaning and threw it out the window when they redefined them as “Numbers that describe rhythms that make me feel uncomfortable”.
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Regular time signatures allow you to write bars whose length is any combination of whole-notes, half-notes, quarter-notes, etc., but non-dyadic time signatures allow you to write bars whose length is any fraction of a whole note. Fractions… weren't we talking about those things earlier? Oh right.		Regular time signatures allow you to write bars whose length is any combination of whole-notes, half-notes, quarter-notes, etc., but non-dyadic time signatures allow you to write bars whose length is any fraction of a whole note. Fractions… weren't we talking about those things earlier? Oh right.
	~~[[File:NOT irrational non dyadic time signature.png\|thumb\|NOT irrational non dyadic time signature]]~~
	''Disclaimer: It's appropriate to call a non-dyadic time signature "irrational" if there's an actual irrational number in it.''		''Disclaimer: It's appropriate to call a non-dyadic time signature "irrational" if there's an actual irrational number in it.''
	[[Category:Music Theory]]		[[Category:Music Theory]]

Fizzwikiadmin: Created page with "Non dyadic time signature explanation '''"Irrational time signatures"''' is a popular (and inaccurate) name for '''non-dyadic time signatures''' amongst Classical and J*zz musicians. '''Irrational numbers''' (ex. √2, π) are numbers that can't be expressed as a ratio of two integers. In other words, they're numbers that you '''can't write as a fraction'''. At least that's what it used to mean before Classical mu..."

2026-06-07T06:30:25Z

Created page with "thumb|Non dyadic time signature explanation '''"Irrational time signatures"''' is a popular (and inaccurate) name for '''non-dyadic time signatures''' amongst Classical and J*zz musicians. '''Irrational numbers''' (ex. √2, π) are numbers that can't be expressed as a ratio of two integers. In other words, they're numbers that you '''can't write as a fraction'''. At least that's what it used to mean before Classical mu..."

New page

[[File:Non dyadic time signature explanation.png|thumb|Non dyadic time signature explanation]]
'''"Irrational time signatures"''' is a popular (and inaccurate) name for '''non-dyadic time signatures''' amongst Classical and J*zz musicians.
'''Irrational numbers''' (ex. √2, π) are numbers that can't be expressed as a ratio of two integers. In other words, they're numbers that you '''can't write as a fraction'''. At least that's what it used to mean before Classical musicians took that meaning and threw it out the window when they redefined them as “Numbers that describe rhythms that make me feel uncomfortable”.

Non-dyadic time signatures are time signatures with a bottom number that isn’t a power of 2, which means that '''non-dyadic tuplets (broken tuplets)''' are a necessary component of them. Wherever there's a non-dyadic time signature, you'll also find a non-dyadic tuplet (and vice versa). Some have speculated that the scary nickname Classical musicians gave to “irrational” time signatures reflects their inability to play tuplets correctly. What’s the point of calling it something more accurate if it’s going to sound like sh*t regardless?

Regular time signatures allow you to write bars whose length is any combination of whole-notes, half-notes, quarter-notes, etc., but non-dyadic time signatures allow you to write bars whose length is any fraction of a whole note. Fractions… weren't we talking about those things earlier? Oh right.
[[File:NOT irrational non dyadic time signature.png|thumb|NOT irrational non dyadic time signature]]
''Disclaimer: It's appropriate to call a non-dyadic time signature "irrational" if there's an actual irrational number in it.''
[[Category:Music Theory]]