Everyone agrees: it is difficult to talk about rhythm in music, or, for that matter, the temporal experience in general. Compared with spatial relations, which appear to us as fixed and graspable, temporal ones seem fleeting and intangible. As a result, the language of time and rhythm is complex, contentious, and highly metaphorical. Considering that theorists today continue to have difficulty dealing with the metrical and durational organization of music from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries – our most familiar music – it should come as no surprise that theoretical writings from those centuries often present themselves as perplexing and in need of explication. Though their manner of formulation may at times seem odd or convoluted, these theorists nonetheless ask many of the same questions about musical rhythm that underlie current concerns: What is a metrical accent? How do the profusion of time signatures relate to each other? Do the groupings of measures create a sense of larger-scale rhythm? Can various durational patterns be organized according to some scheme or another? How does our understanding of musical rhythm affect performance, especially tempo, phrasing, and articulation?

Like many other domains of music theory, rhythmic theories are largely formulated in relation to a distinct compositional practice. Thus when compositional styles change, theorists respond by modifying their conceptions and formulating new ones in order better to reflect such transformations in practice. The high Baroque style, with its motoric pulses, regularized accentuations, and dance-derived rhythms, induced early eighteenth-century theorists to focus in detail on the classification of various metrical and durational patterns and to begin accounting for that most elusive concept – metrical accent.