Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory

Retiring

Thanks for your good works. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory

question

Question: Is this a typo? In the I-vi-ii-V turnaround with approach chords in G, the notation seems to be for D# Major 7, not D#7. Thanks for clarifying. I don't know how else to ask this question other than post here. [User: bgranat; Date: August 4, 2013].

What is the context for this quote/question? -- kosboot (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The context indicated by bgranat (see the main page) is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approach_chord, which, indeed, does appear problematic. The chord figured D#7 reads D#-Fx-A#-Cx, with a major 7th. The preceding approach chords are such that the 7th can be taken enharmonically as the leading tone to the following chord - these approach chords are written a diatonic half-step above the ones on which they resolve. A minor seventh on D# would produce the same effect towards the following D chord, but for the fact that the approach chord is here a chromatic half-step above the following one. Does this justify the Cx? I wonder... -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Re

Hi WikiProject Music theory. I noticed this recent edit to Re. I don't know enough about music to know whether the edit is correct, but if it is correct, I wonder whether Re (musical note) (which is currently a redirect to D (musical note)) should be redirected to Re instead, or perhaps even be changed to a disambiguation page. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit is correct. I don't understand why you would want Re (musical note) redirected to Re. Users who have reached Re (musical note) presumably already know what they want and sending them go the main RE disambiguation page takes them further away. -- kosboot (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I mistakenly thought the updated text was indicating that "Re (musical note)" could actually refer to two different things, but I now see that it was just two different ways of describing the same thing. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. Incidentally, the edit to Re has been reverted. DH85868993 (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

To do list?

Is it normal that the main page includes no To do list? Is there nothing any more to be done? -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Some time ago we realized there are so few active members that having a "to do list" was not helpful, and that members should just do what they can and bring up issues as they arise. -- kosboot (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Erroneous alias for Neapolitan major scale

The Neapolitan scale article includes the sentence "and Neapolitan major may also be called Lydian major scale" but this is almost certainly a mistake; the author probably meant the major Locrian scale, the article for which states that "The major Locrian scale is the 5th mode of the Neapolitan scale." I have added a sentence linking Neapolitan major to the major Locrian article, but it would be preferable to remove the confusing "Lydian major" alias if there's agreement that it's an error. Victimofleisure (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It probably could be removed as an unsupported statement. Maybe you can add the citation needed template as a impending warning. -- kosboot (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but there's a problem: the erroneous statement has a citation. Unless someone has a copy of "The Guitar Grimoire Progressions & Improvisation" by Adam Kadmon, I have no easy way of checking whether the error is the article author's, or Kadmon's. Is there a procedure for this situation? -- Victimofleisure (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You could ask the author who inserted that statement twice, User:Hyacinth. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case I would point one to the cited source: Kadmon, Adam (1998). The Guitar Grimoire Progressions & Improvisation, p.280. ISBN 0825831970. Hyacinth (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It might not really matter. Hyacinth (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the statement in question, but why was the link to the Hungarian gypsy scale also removed? That linkage was correct and I found it helpful. It just needed to be clarified, e.g. The 4th mode of the Neapolitan Minor is also known as the Aeolian #4. But I grasp the citation problem; obviously WP can't be a citation for itself. --Victimofleisure (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have notified User:Hyacinth of this discussion. --209.6.41.166 (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

new online edition of Tinctoris

May be of interest to the group: http://earlymusictheory.org/Tinctoris/ -- kosboot (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chordioid. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

src: thinking.is.ed.ac.uk

Coming back

Hi all. I am thinking about coming back, mostly to focus on the list of music theorists, creating some stubs and expanding other pages. I'd love to know if any of you are interested in joining along for the fun. -- Devin.chaloux (chat) 00:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Count me in. -- kosboot (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Me too. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Enharmonicism

Every now and then I consult Grove Online and find myself very disappointed in some articles, especially those dealing with theory topics. Enharmonicism is one of them: There's only a definition. Already the current WP article is better (even though it's pretty small). As we did last year with Retrograde (music), I invite others to help improve that article, especially with citations to enharmonicism in historical treatises (for example, those listed in the Damschroder bibliography) and recent theory textbooks. I don't have much time at present to research this but hope to get to it later this summer. -- kosboot (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no article "Enharmonicism" properly speaking in the Grove Online, only one entitled "Enharmonic". The only difference that I can see with the article in the 1st edition is the addition of the words "and exploited by the composer" in the next to last sentence and the signature by Julian Rushton (the article was anonymous in 1980). As you may know, only very restricted space was allowed to many articles in the 1980 NG, and the revisions for the 2d edition and the Online version remained (and remain) much more limited (or difficult to obtain) than sometimes claimed.

Defining enharmonicism is not very easy. There is a discussion in the Talk page of Enharmonic keyboard about the opposition between historical usages and modern ones, some of which might be used here. It seems obvious to me that the article "Enharmonic" in WP should deal mainly with the modern usage. It should indicate historical usages, as you suggest, and the relation between "diatonicism", "chromaticism" and "enharmonicism", in both historical and modern usages, should be clarified (perhaps in another article; there already exists one on Diatonic_and_chromatic).

One aspect that may not enough be covered in any of these articles and that may need stressing is the cases of 'enharmonic modulation', which at times are a mere convenience in writing (as when Chopin modulates from C sharp minor to D flat major merely to diminish the number of accidentals; transposing the whole a semitone higher could only be written D minor - D major) and at other times do circulate between keys in a way that cannot be simplified (especially those circulating the full cycle of fifths, as in Bull's Ut re mi fa sol la in the Fitzwilliam Book). Rameau's L'Enharmonique includes chromaticism, but not a single case of enharmonicism.

I too lack time to do much about this just now, but I'll keep an eye open. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I noted that MGG doesn't have separate articles but a single article called "Diatonik-Chromatik-Enharmonik." I think it's more confusing and frustrating to combine them into a single article. As far as Grove...hehe, a story: Before New Grove came out, I once did a project on the composer Anton Zimmermann. All I could find was in MGG, which had been published around 1950. Then New Grove came out and I looked up Zimmermann: It was merely a translation of what was in MGG (Grove had purchased articles from MGG due to the constraint of publishing deadlines). When New Grove 2 and Grove Online came out I looked at it again -- still the same article, almost unchanged since 1950--a period of 50 years!! Let's hope Enharmonic/Enharmonicism will not suffer the same fate in WP. -- kosboot (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, WP has the following articles, among others:

o Diatonic and chromatic; "Diatonicism" and "Chromatic" redirect here, but not Chromaticism which is a separate article.

o Diatonic genus, Diatonic scale, Diatonic semitone, Diatonic function, etc.

o Chromaticism, Chromatic scale; the "Chromatic semitone" and "Chromatic genus" articles are lacking.

o Enharmonic, Enharmonic genus, Enharmonic scale, Enharmonic diesis, Enharmonic modulation, Enharmonic keyboard, etc.

All this remains rather unhierarchized and at times contradictory. Our first task might be to organize all these articles (and some others) and to clearly delimitate each. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me perhaps add to the New Grove saga, because otherwise these stories may forever be forgotten... The NG had first been foreseen, in the late 1960's probably, as the 6th edition of Grove's Dictionary. The set of articles was very tightly foreseen, by an excellent group of editors, and has been subjected to highly critical rereadings. Trespassing the alloted space was hardly allowed, but the control happened in agreeable scholarly discussions. The first texts were entered in the early '70s; the Dictionary was sold to the authors for a bargain price that eventually turned out to be way under half of the final price. The 6th edition had taken such proportions that one decided to rename it the "New" Grove. The received papers were entered from the early '70s, probably, on computer discs that may have been of one of the very first generation. Then something happened, I don't know what exactly, nor when exactly, but about half of the computer discs were lost. Many of the papers had to be asked anew to angry authors by distressed editors. This may explain the situation that you describe with the Zimmerman article. Whatever it be, the New Grove was published in 1980, about five years (or more) later than foreseen, and at a cost more than double that originally foreseen. The only trace of these events in the Dictionary itself is a moving sentence at the end of the very last page of the last volume (vol. 20, p. 838): E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle, "And now we get out to see the stars again". The people having worked on the fabrication of the volumes must indeed have felt buried in a cave for many years.

The first edition therefore must be recognized as having been planned with very strict editorial guidelines, but having suffered from major technical difficulties. I consider it however way better than the second edition. This second edition, which is at the origin of the Online version, certainly was not subjected to the same careful planning and, even if it didn't meet with the same technical problems as the first, probably suffered from problems with the initial editor (Macmillan), about which I know nothing. Suggestions for changes in the Online articles by the authors themselves do not seem to be taken in account. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff; thank you. ("E quindi uscimmo ..." describes the escape from Dante's Inferno.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I should be able to get back to serious editing after July 22. (The discussions here make me also want to expand the article on New Grove, relating stories I read in reviews.) -- kosboot (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

src: positivists.org

Diatonic, chromatic, enharmonic

Following the previous discussion, I had a look on most (or possibly all) Wikipedia articles dealing with, say, 'Diatonic', 'Chromatic', 'Enharmmonic'. My conclusion is that one could hardly begin work on any of these articles unless as part of a general plan concerning all of them, and that we should therefore begin by drawing that plan.

In general, all of these articles are rather poorly referenced, mixing (rare) serious references with outdated or doubtful ones. There is a lot of duplication, in most cases without coordination and at times with contradictory information.

More specifically (using D., C. and E. abbreviations in obvious meanings):

• There is a Diatonic and chromatic article, dealing with genera, [coloration], chromaticism, scales, instruments, intervals, tunings, chords, harmony, etc., and to which several others redirect: "Diatonic harmony", "Chromatic harmony", "Diatonic modulation" [but neither "C." nor "E. modulation"].
• There is a separate Chromaticism article dealing with similar topics.
• Three articles of similar content deal with Diatonic genus, Chromatic genus and Enharmonic genus; there also is a "Genus (music)" article that redirects to "Tetrachord" which in turn links to those three.
• Three articles on Diatonic scale, Chromatic scale and Enharmonic scale.
• Diatonic hexachord does not link to "Hexachord" (nor reciprocally), although they do overlap.
• Chromatic chord redirects to "Chromaticism".
• Diatonic transposition redirects to "Transposition".
• Diatonic function apparently deals with "Tonal function", but appears not at all at ease with the history of the concept...
• Chromatic modulation and Enharmonic modulation redirect to corresponding sections of "Modulation", but Diatonic modulation redirects to "Diatonic and chromatic", although "Modulation" includes section about 'Common tone modulation' and 'Common chord modulation' that may concern D. modulation.
• Diatonic semitone redirects to "Minor second", while Chromatic semitone redirects to "Augmented unison". [I would have expected something about major/minor semitone...; "Minor second" seems confusing, as there are also major and minor tones ...]

There are also articles about organological matters, Diatonic button accordion and Chromatic button accordion [but nothing about "D. accordion" which, in French, often means "Accordéon bisonore"] and Diatonic harmonica and Chromatic harmonica, which we may have to check for coherence with our own work, and Enharmonic keyboard which may retain us here as it includes a discussion about the meaning of the term.

Once again, we probably should decide about a general plan for these articles, but I don't immediately see how we could proceed. The work probably should be organized by an "active participant" to the Music Theory project -- which I ain't, luckily ;-))

-- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a lot of work - thank you Hucbald. So now the question becomes: How to identify a plan that would help begin work on all this. One idea would be to start with a combined "Diatonic, Chromatic, Enharmonic" article, with the idea that eventually three separate articles would result. Anyone else? -- kosboot (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This indeed probably is what we should do. We will soon discover, though, why the existing article is Diatonic and chromatic without 'Enharmonic'. And an article dealing with all three elements, D, C and E, soon will suggest rewriting the article Genus (music), then Tetrachord to which it redirects at present, then also Jins (and perhaps others, later). Let me merely mention at this point that 'Jins' may refer to a 'Zalzalian' tetrachord (with two neutral thirds and a tone) that might be akin to the Greek C. or E. one.

Beginning with these may start clarify matters. Is there a possibility to work on hidden articles, or to create some sort of sandbox for the purpose, or should we do that in the open from the start? -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Standard practice, and suggest you follow it, is to create such revamps in one's sandbox(es), similar to to your User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/sandbox. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I have a vague recollection that this is an interest of Hyacinth and hope he would weigh in on this proposed work. -- kosboot (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Jerome Kohl may or may not also have interest and time. Hyacinth (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the bell, Hyacinth. My first reaction is to mention three more articles that are interlaced with the genera and tetrachord articles:

• Octave species
• Pyknon
• Ditone

The octave-species article, especially, is ripe for consideration amongst all these others, because it has been suggested on its Talk page that it might be recast as a more general article on species of all relevant intervals. Perhaps the article on the Musical system of ancient Greece should be investigated, as well.--Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hum! I ain't so sure that 'species' should be about 'species of intervals', and it seems that your correspondent decides somewhat arbitrarily that the treatises defining 'species' as 'species primarum consonantiarum' are the most important. There is 'species counterpoint', for instance... 'Species', as you say, is not really a technical term (which makes the problem all the more difficult); rather than claiming that it means 'species primarum consonantiarum', I'd merely say that it means 'variety', 'type', or the like.

What strikes me is that the Pyknon article in fact probably includes all what should be found in a genus (music) article, as well as other definitions that should be moved to Tetrachord or other articles; and this certainly deserves some coordination. I do not mean that the definitions in Pyknon are incorrect, on the contrary they seem better than those in the relevant articles; merely one should not find diverging definitions on different 'species' of articles.

We cannot rewrite Wikipedia as a whole, we should draw some limits; I wouldn't touch Octave species for the time being, nor even ancient Greece, which remains highly complex - ensuring some coordination in the existing articles may be sufficient. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Diatonic hexachord has linked to hexachord since it's creation. What makes there a need for a plan? Hyacinth (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You are right, I missed the link from Diatonic hexachord to Hexachord (but there is no reverse link), and I also missed Chromatic hexachord. The situation here is not as bad a I thought. However, D. hexachord mentions 'Guidonian hexachord' as a synonym, but the description of this medieval hexachord is more developed in Tetrachord. What is needed here is not so much a plan than improved coordination; but this is not the most urgent case. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It sounds like we may need a tree or table of contents, maybe a checklist? Hyacinth (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Though I don't get home for a few days (so I'm without full access to good sources) I am ready to start on this. My original intention was just focusing on amplifying the enharmonicism article, but I see there's a lot of other issues. So many of the articles mentioned above sound like they can be folded into one another, or at least cured with a few redirects. Just as one sees trees from the forest, I guess we first have to come to agreement on what are the core topics and then how to deal with them. Though MGG has a single article on "diatonic, chromatic, enharmonic" suggesting that all three are of the same level of significance, I think diatonic and chromatic are really the central issues--(enharmonic being a tributary of chromaticism. I think all the other articles are based on those two. Anyone else have thoughts? -- kosboot (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that these three terms nevertheless belong together and that we should begin (a) by presenting them together, then (b) to explain why only two of them are important for Western music, and possibly adding (c) that 'enharmonicism' retains some importance in theories of Oriental music (linked to the so-called 'Zalzalian scale'; I cannot verify just now whether WP has an article about this). The only place to do so would IMO be one of the articles on Greek genera, probably Genus (music), to which Diatonic genus, Chromatic genus and Enharmonic genus merely could link. This done, we would be more at ease to concentrate on Diatonic/Chromatic. I presume that sources for an article on Genus will be found in Matthiesen on Greek theory, and possibly in the older book by Murray Barbour. I will have better access to these within a few days. - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It certainly makes sense to consolidate the three articles on the diatonic, chromatic, and enharmonic genera into a single article titled "Genus (music)". However, as noted above, this is currently a redirect to "Tetrachord". I don't think that changing that redirect to an article will cause any problems. Can anyone else see a difficulty with this?--Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made this conflation, in the process editing out some duplicated material and making the structure of the discussion more consistent. There is still a great deal of work needed, but it is a start. I have refrained from incorporating the pyknon article for the time being. Not only is it rather outsized for such a small subject (pun intended), but its structure resists a simple transfer. Perhaps it should remain independent?--Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Major revision of the core article

In case any member of this WikiProject may have overlooked it, a discussion has been opened on Talk:Music theory, concerning the need for a major revision and restructuring of the core Music theory article.--Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

List of musical intervals

Would anyone care to look at recent changes to List of musical intervals, which has been turned into a redirect? There's also a request to move the List of pitch intervals to that title which may be relevant. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I gave my opinion about this in the talk page of List of pitch intervals. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Setting - not the same as an arrangement?

At present, Musical setting redirects to Arrangement, which seems to me to be not the same thing. Unless I'm wrong, perhaps someone more knowledgeable than myself could disentangle the two? Thanks in advance... Alansplodge (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd put this on WikiProject Classical music, if only because they're a much more active group and the topic (I feel) is more general than theoretical. And yes, it needs a lot of help. kosboot (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll give it a shot. Alansplodge (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Classical training

I have recently discovered that Wikipedia doesn't have an article defining what it means to be "classically trained". I have started the article in my sandbox here User:Boguslavmandzyuk/Sandbox/Classical training (music), which I intend to move to the mainspace when it is ready. Particularly, I will need to find actual reliable sources that back up the information that we all already know. Feel free to add to it and help me out. Any help is appreciated.--BoguSlav 22:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ooh! This should be fun! Whenever I come across a subject where "everybody already knows" things, they end up with the most bitter disputes about what is what. You are right to put the emphasis on finding reliable sources! For a start, I notice from your draft that singers are not allowed to have a classical education--only instrumentalists. Perhaps that should be rectified right away, before we start getting those old "singers and musicians" jokes.--Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. I know what you mean. That's the precise reason I chose to create it in a sandbox and transfer it when it can stand on its own two feet. I've also thought about the fact that I've "excluded" singers as well, but I'm not quite sure how to phrase it include vocalists. (Technically, according to the singers, their musical instrument is their voice, so they shouldn't feel left out.) But I'm not sure how to say it. As for reliable sources, this has already turned out to be such a tedious online search, because I mostly find myself fishing through blogs, music studio websites, and other opinion pieces. None of these are reliable sources, and many of them have a very biased POV that somehow classical training is horrible. Perhaps others are better at finding sources than me, or just know information that I don't know. Their input would be very helpful.--BoguSlav 06:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

scholar.google.com answers with about 697000 results to a search with the keywords <classical music education>, and about 346 with the keywords <"classical music education">.Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will definitely look through those.--BoguSlav 18:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The JISC announced a new mailing list, and a website to come, about Historical Music Pedagogy. This might be interesting for a project on classical music training, -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk o contribs) 12:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Bernhard Ziehn created

Just created an article on Bernhard Ziehn which I know a number of people wanted. Barely start class. Haven't yet wikified the numerous references to him. Have at it. kosboot (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Consistency in page titles re -flat vs ? and -sharp vs ?

Can we use the symbols ? and ? consistently in all wikipedia page titles rather than -flat and -sharp? Compare, for example, B? (musical note) and B-flat major. I have occassionally used the music template to render ? and ? in page text; I understand this is to have these rendered correctly on all devices. That wouldn't work in the title itself of course. But I wonder if we can simply use the two unicode symbols everywhere these days?

Would anyone object if I got started moving pages like B-flat major to B? major, etc? Tayste (edits) 02:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would object, because I don't feel any mass-action should be taken unless it is discussed by this group. Personally I prefer the written-out forms instead of the symbols. It would be useful to know what blind people hear when WP is read to them; I suspect that assistive hearing devices would not be able to make sense of the symbols. - kosboot (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I, too, think that moving more article titles to use the Unicode symbols is unhelpful; "B-flat" is much easier to enter into a search box than B? (notwithstanding the REDIRECT B-flat (musical note)). If anything, I would argue to move B? (musical note) the other way, to B-flat (musical note). I suspect there's a guideline somewhere, discouraging obscure Unicode characters in page titles (unless they are part of a proper name).-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, I have the feeling that while one often uses B? of F?, etc., for the notes, one more often uses B-flat, F-sharp, etc., for the keys -- this may be the reason of the difference between B? (musical note) and B-flat major. But the arguments of readability and of searchability in Wikipedia seem overwhelming, and if the changes are to be made, I think too that they should favor the written-out forms. The redirections appear at present quite systematic, though. Note, by the way, that the Wikipedia codes ? and ? ain't really the Unicode characters, ? (& #x266D;) and ? (& #x266F;) respectively (and which I wouldn't say are obscure characters ;-)); Wikipedia's codes are nicer. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Could I ask why there's a space between lettername and flat/sharp sign? It looks very odd. Tony (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I see no space in "B?" nor in "B?". There is some space in the image File:B-Flat.svg, but that's not used in text. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

In Firefox and Safari (in all skins), the "?" character has big leading and trailing spaces, so Michael's second example has excess space between the B and the flat symbol, and more than an n-space between the flat symbol and the parenthesis. The {{music}} template gives correctly spaced results, but can't be used in article titles. As with so many title discussions, it actually seems much more important to fix the article: "B?... is the eleventh semitone ...". Last time I looked, B?was a note, not an interval. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all for your comments. No musician writes out "B-flat" in any circumstance that I'm aware of; we always use the symbol. So for readability, the symbol is preferred everywhere; the written out text form is clumsy. Re unicode: in the text of articles the music template is the preferred option as in B?. It's just the titles that would use the unicode symbol because that method is not available. Re searching, the redirects take care of that so that's not a good argument for avoiding the symbol in page titles. So the only valid objection I can see is regarding blind people. Are there any blind wikipedians (also musicians, ideally) who we can contact to get their opinions? Tayste (edits) 21:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The number of reasons is not as important as their import. Being a musician (which I am) has little to do with it - Wikipedia is for everyone, especially non-musicians. That alone I feel comes down heavily in favor of writing out the symbols. If that does not satisfy you, then take a vote of the members of this group. - kosboot (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-musicians who don't know what "?" means can still read pages such as B? major and B? (musical note) perfectly easly because the lede tells them to read "B?" as "B-flat". So I don't think that's a good reason for preferring the title B-flat major over B? major. Tayste (edits) 01:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to dispel one myth, it is simply not the case that "No musician writes out 'B-flat' in any circumstance". I cannot speak to Tayste's awareness, but I myself do sometimes write out "B-flat" (and, like Kosboot and Tayste, I, too am a musician). I think Hucbald may be correct, that this practice tends to be more frequent with key names than when referring to notes. I think we may be in fairly good company, at least as far as the title pages of published scores are concerned. For example, these symphonies by Chausson and Hindemith. There are also many examples of the use of symbols in similar contexts, of course.--Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Any way this space could be avoided would be great. Tony (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(Tony, I don't see spaces you mention either in my Firefox - what hardware and software are you using?)

Let me clarify my statement then - perhaps I mean in a more ideal sense, i.e. when not being constrained by technology (such as being constrained to ASCII, or not having a convenient ? on the keyboard). If you were taking notes in a lecture by hand, would you spell out "B-flat major"? Tayste (edits) 04:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, that is exactly one of the circumstances in which I always write out the words "flat" and "sharp" instead of using symbols (same goes for "natural"). If you had seen my handwriting, you would understand why.--Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Jerome, Safari for the Mac. The ? sign appears to sit within an invisible frame that spaces it left and right. Could someone upload one that doesn't do that? Tony (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing to upload. The character "?" (or "?", written as ♭), as explained at Flat (music), is the visual representation of the Unicode character (U+266D) from the Unicode block Miscellaneous Symbols. How a browser displays that symbol is not controllable by the HTML code of a website. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Firefox 37.0.1 for Mac displays this exactly the same way as Safari 5.1.10 (I know, I know--badly out-of-date versions, but I doubt that any significant change in this department has been made more recently). As Michael says, this is a "feature" of the browser, so of you want this changed you will have to take it up with the creators of the software.--Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Just checked Chrome 42.0.2311.90 for Mac (running OS X 10.10), and it also displays with the spacing. So does Safari 8.0.4 (also running under Yosemite). There is some good news and some bad news for "early music" aficionados who enjoy performances on "early instruments": The good news is that InternetExplorer for Mac 5.1 (running under OS 9.2) displays the characters without the extra space; the bad news is that it displays a question mark instead of a flat or sharp sign.--Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples (Hindemith etc.). After having a broader look around (e.g. IMSLP) I concede that I was wrong and that "flat" and "sharp" are indeed often written out in text, particularly in the titles of pieces. So I'll leave the page titles as they are. Tayste (edits) 23:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I see padding around the flat symbol in "B?" (B?) and "B?" (B♭) but not "B?" (B{{Music|b}}). I'm using Google Chrome version 42.0.2311.152 m on a Microsoft Surface Pro 3 running Windows 8.1 Pro. --sroc ? 16:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music § Classical music titles §§ Abbreviations says:

• Note: ?, ? and ? signs should not be used in article titles or headings.

Note also that the hash character ("#") is forbidden in article titles for technical reasons (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) § Forbidden characters). Although the sharp sign ("?") is possible, it was perhaps decided to avoid it (along with ? and ?) in article titles because they cannot be typed easily (e.g., in the address bar, search box, edit window when typing wikilinks, etc.). --sroc ? 16:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we agree that unspaced flat and sharp signs need to be made available? I can't stand the space between letter and sign. It's weird. Tony (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Revision of the article Tonality

The article Tonality is very much in need of a revision. As this may involve a thorough rewriting, I began the revision in a specific "Sandbox" page, User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Tonality. Anyone is welcome to participate to this revision. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Four-part harmony

In Wikiproject Classical Music someone came across this article and said it needed help. This article does not even mention how 4-part harmony is the method by which people learn harmony. I promised to try to add some theoretical information - others are welcomed to contribute. - kosboot (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The opening and the adjacent caption, taken together, confuse two meanings of voice. Here's the opening: "The term "four-part harmony" refers to music written for four voices, or four musical instruments, or a keyboard instrument, or some other medium, where the various parts give a different note of each chord of the music." Tony (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Dissonants#Requested_move_13_October_2015

Not sure this project is very active, but dissonant is a redirect to a Music theory article. Might want to take a look In ictu oculi (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

A call for help

Several of the comments above (1) wonder whether the WikiProject Music theory is still alive and (2) complain about the present state of several articles on music theory. Hoping that the aswer to (1) is positive and that the projet is living and well, I'd like to call to help for the reviewing of several articles. To this end, I opened several sandbox pages, described below. The very principle of such pages has been contested, e.g. by Olorulus on the talk page of Tonality. I am open to such criticism, yet I still believe that sandbox pages are a viable way to improve things.

• User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Music_theory is a commented version of the Music theory page. It may not have been a very good idea, but it helped me identify one of the main problems of the page itself, namely conflicting views on what counts as "music theory" and whether there might have existed a prehistoric, unwritten theory. See also Talk:Music_theory about this. Anyway, this prompted me to open the following page:
• User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Western_music_theory is a page concerned with Western theory exclusively (there exists a similar page in the French speaking Wikipedia), in order to avoid the problems mentioned above: a page on Western theory does not really need to raise the question of prehistoric theory; it may therefore leave the other page freer to do so. I reckon however that this does not remove the difficulty of defining what is "music theory", at which the page sort of got stuck.
• User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Tonality is intended to become an alternative to the existing Tonality page. In its present state, I think it proposes a satisfying programme of what the page could become, but many of the sections remain to be written.
• User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Consonance_and_dissonance is now pending. Some of it has found its way in the present Consonance_and_dissonance page which, however, in my opinion remains unsatisfactory on several points. But I found it useless, for the time being, to further develop this page.

All these pages need the help from the participants to the Project Music theory. None of them is my personal property; if they are linked to my own page, it merely is that I didn't find another way to create them. Up to now, however, participation has been rather sporadic. I am very grateful to those who participated, even those with whom I have been in disagreement.

Let me add that these pages do not necessarily need to replace the existing ones. If the tables of content are reasonably similar, it may be a simple thing to modify sections of the existing pages by adding information coming from the sandbox pages. Or else, the existing pages may be reorganized according to the suggestions of the sandbox pages. But I feel it somewhat difficult to go on arguing on the existing pages and their talk pages, before we reached some sort of consensus about what we would like to achieve. Note that each of the sandbox pages described here has its own talk page for further discussions.

Thanks for your help. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to assist, but I'm not in total agreement with some of the assumptions in your sandbox articles. I have no problem with the sandbox process in principle, as long as the relevant page histories are checked for any changes that might be worth integrating. Tony (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC) PS You clearly speak French: could you briefly comment on the state of the field on fr.WP, by comparison with en.WP? Tony (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I think there are active members here who are willing to help. This has never been a large vibrant project since I started it in 2008. I wish there were more members; particularly editors with some expertise in this area. I am no longer involved much with this project as I have a stronger interest in writing opera related articles. As for your article creations, why not just be bold and make the edits yourself. As long as they are properly referenced there shouldn't be much push back, and probably lots of thank yous headed your way. I don't think having competing articles in user space is a good idea.4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Several answers:

• The only interesting thing about the fr.WP article Théorie de la musique occidentale is that it exists. There is also an article Théorie de la musique. Both are extremely short and do not really speak of theory. But what seemed interesting to me was to have separate articles for Theory in general and Western Theory in particular, and I got the idea from the fr.WP. I may use the en.WP project to rewrite the French article.
• Tony, that you are not in agreement with some of the present assumptions can but interest me: don't hesitate to discuss and/or change what you don't like - and, above all, let's discuss the disagreements: that's the best way to progress.
• 4meter4, there are several reasons why I do not feel like making the edits myself in the original article. I don't really have the time, nor the energy, especially if that means struggling against reverts that would soon follow. I feel that the article Music theory needs a complete reorganization, which deserves some preparation in a sandbox: I thought better to work together to this end, and to reach some sort of consensus before modifying (or, probably, drastically rewriting) the existing article. The same is true, to a lesser extent perhaps, of the Tonality article.
• I came here prompted by a discussion on SMT Discuss, where one can see that the reluctance of SMT members has been caused by "revert wars". My "sandbox approach" was conceived as a possible way to bypass this difficulty. But it doesn't make sense if we do not work together. If there is no collaboration to my sandbox pages, I might indeed as well make the edits myself; but I don't believe that possible at this point.
• The SMT discussion does refer to some WP articles being "more complete than can be found in any other published source"; some indeed begin to be referenced on the link pages of academic Music departments. My mistake, however, may have been to attack such important, central articles as Music theory and Tonality. We should perhaps better begin with more peripheral articles. (I have done some work on Tetrachord, recently, and I think that the worst of it has now been removed.) But that too would need discussion.

In short, I can only repeat my request for help, on all these points. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that there are only three or four editors currently active on each of these pages has in some cases created another problem, which is that a single editor can effectively prevent consensus on specific issues. I think this is what Hucbald is referring to about "revert wars", and so 4meter4's suggestion to "be bold" is more likely to provoke "pushback" than "thankyous". A larger number of voices would facilitate consensus on issues that currently are stalemated. It is precisely this problem that has prompted me to withdraw temporarily from the discussion of these revisions, though I do intend to return to these debates if and when the dust settles.--Jerome Kohl (talk)

Indeed, Jerome Kohl, and this all well considered is the very sense of my call for help: I cannot and I won't go on without some collaboration. Which does not mean that I'll abandon the whole idea, but that like you I'll probably temporarily withdraw. "Temporarily" may become rather long, however, if there is no reaction. We (if you allow me to count you with me) don't need advices, we need collaboration. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The irony is that if more people interested in music theory became part of this project, then there would be enough people to argue against the reverters. In any case, even if this project is small, there are enough of us to try to move forward. Generally I suggest moving incrementally, gaining the confidence of others to take bolder steps. There is one occasion where I re-wrote an entire article in my sandbox, then blanked the existing article and substituted my version; no one complained. That article was Heinrich Schenker. Perhaps if we could take a organized approach to redoing the music theory article that might work. - kosboot (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, and the central music theory article would be a good place to start. I agree with Hucbald that, without collaboration, we cannot make progress with this article or the related ones on harmony, tonality, and so on. If the article on music theory is of no concern to members of this project, then I don't understand what its purpose is at all.--Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Overleaf, many editors are listed as active. Perhaps one could ping each of them with a standard message asking whether they want their name to be retained on the active list or moved to the inactive list. Tony (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I presume that most really active members, among the 32 listed overleaf, have this page in their watchlist and, therefore, are aware of the present discussion. I'm afraid none of us has the authority to move any of them to the inactive list. Similarly, I consider the articles themselves anonymous: nobody has authority on them. If the Heinrich Schenker article remains as kosboot wrote it some time ago, it is not because of Kosboot himself, but because the article is good (I'd say the same of Schenkerian analysis, by the way, which did undergo some improvement but no important change since now about two years - this is not an invitation to begin destroying it ;-)). One problem with Music theory is that somebody claims to have authority on it (or on its History section) and refuses to consider critics. (That somebody is among our active members and might be reading this: I invite him to join the debate). It is precisely to avoid endless discussions with a self-appointed "owner" that I suggest opening another page on Western Music Theory. But I certainly don't want to pass myself for its owner and, for this reason, I don't want to write it alone. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

(I often state that Wikipedia is a "social encyclopedia" and that one must always approach it in the way one approaches any collaboration, with give-and-take.) Perhaps if someone started to edit the music theory article we could engage this Wikipedian and convince them to approach the topic with greater openness. Personally, I dislike most of the illustrations, many of which seem tangential. - kosboot (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I may have been too agressive in the recent discussions (see Talk:Music_theory and its archives) to be the one to do that with any chance of success, for the time being at least. But I'll gladly join after a while, if the first discussions turn successful. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to join the Music Theory Project! I will add a new section with more detail on my request but for now I would like to say that this Project needs help! I want to help! --Xavier (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Introduction - Xavier

Hello Project members! I just want to introduce myself as a new member of the project. Woot! My plans are to help on all subjects, giving you my 18 years of experience with music professionally, and of course my years as a youth unprofessionally, span longer.

I can see that this group needs some help as participation may be low, but I want to assure you all that I will be very active on this project. --Xavier (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Xavier, and all, please note that the discussion was rekindled on Talk:Music_theory, in more friendly terms than before. It is there that we need help. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand: Should discussions about WP:MTHEORY not be restricted to the page we are on now? Talk:Music_theory is for discussion about the article itself, not our project WP:MTHEORY.

--Xavier (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Now it makes sense, you are not a member. I maintain my last sentence:

"Talk:Music_theory is for discussion about the article itself, not our project WP:MTHEORY."

--Xavier (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Userbox?

Hello members! I just joined the project and was wondering if we have a userbox? It is an honour to be apart of this project and I hope I can be of some great help! --Xavier (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this project active?

If this project is still active then please respond to this message. I will be a permanent member here and if the project does not have any activity for over a month then I vote to become its organizer. If you are all still out there than great, I hope we can meet up soon! --Xavier (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Xavier, I have been an active member of this project since over two years, and I still am. The list of active members counts 33 names (yours included). This project is "dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage and organization of music theory topics." This can only happen in the individual articles themselves, not here. We might discuss some details of the Music theory here, but I don't think it would be a good idea. You'll find the names of several of us in the Talk:Music_theory page and its archives. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand: Awesome! Glad to here from active members! Hooray! I am so amped to be a part of this project!

--Xavier (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Xavier, I suggest that you begin reading several talk pages: first of all, this one; then several of the pages linked to above. I think that for now we should concentrate on the Music theory article itself -- to be discussed in its own talk page rather than here, because many may not often check this page. Note that the Talk:Music_theory page has six pages or Archives, five of which date from 2015, because discussions there have been quite active. You should check that first, then enter the discussion as soon as possible because we need to hear different voices, lest the whole thing reduces to a few monologues. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand: My discussions for now are purely WikiProject related. So, I see no reason to have this particular discussion there. When the time comers to discuss actual Music theory topics, I will begin discussion there. Again, for now, my discussions are purely related to the project itself, hence why I am on the project talk page.

--Xavier (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to help as soon as I can and am really excited to discuss music theory with you all! Woot!

--Xavier (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Xavier enc: But how do you conceive of "the project itself", if it is not about improving WP articles? -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think my point was misunderstood but, that is okay. I will be there soon to help. I have another project that is in a desperate situation so the project really needs my attention today. I think by tomorrow I will be ready to participate in theory discussion. You can see the list of projects I'm in on my user page and they are listed by lowest members at the top below the parent, music. Hope all is well!

--Xavier (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

New host?

The original creator 4meter4 has agreed to make me host. If anyone agrees/disagrees please comment. I am only interested in creating a better project through implementing current project standards for our parent project. You can also see a list of my projects on my user page. I am very active in music projects. If the consensus disagrees I have no problem with that and will continue to help as best as I can! --Xavier (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand that there are important articles to discuss and I will be soon adding to them. For this very reason it can become hard to find the time to take care of project responsibilities, which is why I aim to host. You will find me alleviating this role thus giving you more time to spend on articles. --Xavier (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

If that is not okay with you than I humbly request permission to revamp the project page as it is an extreme eyesore, hard to navigate, and has some unnecessary sub pages. --Xavier (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem in principle, Xavier; but the original creator has no right to "make" you anything. :-) I wonder whether you agree that content is our primary challenge; consistency with the "parent" project seems like the easy bit. Revamp ... can we see what Hucbald, Jerome, et al think? Tony (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tony1: You are correct he does not. Which is why he "agreed" and which is why I am requesting this from the entire community. --Xavier (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

We have to remember who our parent is and that we have a responsibility to that parent. Regular updates with their list of sub projects is one example. --Xavier (talk)

On that note I also understand that there are no leaders on WP (should the question come up). I only want to alleviate the responsibilities of the project while helping to improve articles as a team. --Xavier (talk)

@Xavier enc: Let me second Tony and amplify: none of us, either individually or as a group, has any power to make you "host" of this project; any "agreement" that we may voice would remain without validity. It is up to you to do what you think necessary with this page, and we will react. After a while you may indeed appear as the "host", but that will result from your actions, not our agreement. You are n. 33 in our list of 33 participants. You joined yesterday, and the same is true for most of the projects listed in your page. We won't buy pigs in pokes, if I may say so, but we will certainly gladly approve any improvement that you can bring to this project. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand: Thank you for your thoughts! It is awesome to see activity on the project. With no doubt I will contribute and consider me just a picky coder. ) --Xavier (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed many issues

There has been long overdue syntax on our project page. For example, our parent template for our banner is about to be deleted! Don't worry, I will be making a new template in my sandbox. For now, the home page looks a thousand times better! --Xavier (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

FA quality music theory articles

Browsing through the list of FA quality music theory articles - this was easily done, there are only four - I was somewhat surprised to discover that two of them, Johannes Kepler and Leonhard Euler, mention music theory only in passing, or not at all. I don't know much about Kepler's achievements in music theory, but I recently got involved in Euler's writings on music... and I wonder.

Whatever has been said about Euler, he devoted to music only about a dozen (about 500 pages in total) of his more than 800 published writings - I refer here to the Eneström list of his writings. His main achievements are (1) that he considered the possibility of extending just intonation to 7-limit (as one says today) and (2) that he proposed the Tonnetz. One may argue that in both these aspects he was sort of visionary, considering the importance taken today on the one hand by the Tonnetz in neo-Riemannian theory and on the other hand by the extension of tuning systems to 7-limit and higher. But these recent developments did not really depend on a knowledge of Euler. One must consider in addition that Euler's description of just intonation relies heavily on that by Mattheson (General-Baß-Schule). I hardly could add to the existing Euler article, though, because my knowledge is mainly from first-hand reading, i.e. is "original research" (without anything original, though).

I do not question the intrinsic quality of these articles, but I question their importance (and even their quality) for the Music Theory project and, particularly, their position among the top quality and mid importance articles in music theory. This makes me wonder about the meaning of these rankings. The importance, IMO, should be rated not with respect to the article itself, but to its position in the overall project - that is that there should be an evaluation of the importance for music theory. I wonder, for instance, why the C? (musical note) article is classified as of High importance (and the only note so classified), while Heinrich Schenker, for instance, is of Unknown importance (but of C quality)!!! I even wonder about the quality rating: can the Euler article be said of quality for the Music theory project, while it does not even mention the De harmoniae veris principiis of 1774, which is the work really presenting the Tonnetz?

Should we not do something about that? Who votes? When? Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your points. A proposal on the WikiProject talkpage, then? Tony (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems however that we first have to know whether quality and importance rankings are on the level of separate projects, or at the level of WP at large. C? (musical note) for instance may appear of High importance to some, even if we music theoricians might think otherwise. And Leonhard Euler probably is of importance in general, even if it may not for music theory. What we need first, therefore, is an opinion on this by somebody more knowledgeable on Wikipedia policies. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that we make what ever decisions make best sense to the folks editing these articles than finding "somebody more knowledgeable on Wikipedia policies." inviting a bureaucrat in is sort of like inviting your strong neighbor in to help win a civil war. It is, according to Machiavelli and other knowledgeable people, not a good idea in the long run. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

To my mind, if the person has some connection to music theory (in these cases, authors), I don't think it's right for this project to ignore them. I have seen other pages that rate high to some project but rate medium-to-low for other projects. Kepler and Euler are clearly better known for their mathematical knowledge, but through their writings have a small connection to music. Perhaps it can be noted (on the respective talk pages?) that low ratings from this project indicate that the music theory part of the articles are in need of amplification? - kosboot (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Now that we more or less agree, can anyone tell us how we can change these ratings, for so far as music theory is concerned? As to Euler, I will try and add something to the article about music theory before we vote - I'll do that today. We (I, at least) would also need more information about what is meant by "quality" and "importance". -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

As with other projects, we need to come up with criteria that explains why an article receives a particular rating from this group. I belong to WP:OPERA and they have detailed article assessment guideline: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/Assessment - might we want to start something similar? - kosboot (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

At any rate, I created Leonhard Euler#Music, which might better justify its importance for us. Let's have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/Assessment -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I discovered that almost all that we need to know can be found here and here. We also have a page Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory/Assessment, where our own list of criteria could be added.

If one clicks on any of the figures in the table "Music theory articles by quality and importance", in this Assessment page, one finds interesting things: an article list appears which says which articles are concerned by the figure; this list (at the bottom of the page) gives the importance rating and the quality rating, both with a date. Clicking on the date shows the state of the article at that date, which probably was the time when the rating was decided. It will soon be seen that these versions are quite outdated: the whole certainly is in need of actualization.

Using all this is not that simple, though. And the decision to actualize the assessments in Music theory articles should be a collective one, which in turn raises the question of who is an active member of this project. Comments on all this will be welcome. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The stated parameters allow anyone to assess the quality of an article. There are no guidelines on how to rate the importance of an article. Drawing again from my experience with the opera project (WP:OPERA), people just announce that more assessments need to be done, or that the level of certain articles need to be raised - and some people just go ahead an do them. I'd like to work on the stub articles as well as the unassessed articles. I'd also hope to figure out how to determine the importance of an article. - kosboot (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Theory properly speaking

I wrote in the talk page of the Music theory article a note about which I'd very much like the opinion of all participants to this project. I think indeed that it engages the very purpose of our project as a whole. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Sharps and flats in article titles

Is there any particular reason why, for example, F-sharp major is called that instead of F? major? There's no technical reason for it, as the existence of the redirect indicates. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

See above, where this question has already be discussed. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Names deleted from List of music theorists

Citing the guideline WP:WTAF a number of music theorists were deleted from the List of music theorists. I have created a subpage to that page (perhaps I should have placed it here) List of music theorists/Articles Needing Creation so we can see which names need articles. (I tried reverting the deletion and was warned that I was edit-warring. But I want to add that recent criticisms of Wikipedia have point out that it is exactly this kind of deletionism that is a significant problem.) - kosboot (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are the names that were deleted: WikiProject_Music_theory/List_of_music_theorists_needing_creation. Maybe someone can figure out how to put a link on the main page. - kosboot (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I moved it out of mainspace again; it is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory/List of music theorists needing creation. VQuakr (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: WikiProject Microtonal Music, Tuning, Temperaments and Scales

Hi there, just to say I've proposed a project Microtonal Music, Tuning, Temperaments and Scales .

It's scope would include everything in the now inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and_Scales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) project,. But it adds "Microtonal Music" to the title. This makes it broader in scope, for instance to include microtonal compositions and composition technique, microtonal chords, microtonal composers, microtonal organizations, microtonal regional and national music, etc etc. The idea is that as a larger project we would get more participation.

If you support the idea please add your name to the #Support section, or if you have any thoughts on it that you want to share, do add your voice to its Discussion section. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

"Cheap Thrills" chord progressions and keys

Hello WikiProject Music theory. There's a small dispute at Talk:Cheap Thrills (song)#Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2016 regarding chord progressions and keys. I'm totally unfamiliar with this field, so do you think one of you could take a look at the issue and offer input? Please also see this discussion on my user talk page. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I gave an answer on the Talk:Cheap Thrills (song)#Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2016 page. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Diatonic function

There is a requested move discussion for the page Diatonic function here -- Andy W. (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Useful or not?

Our article on "organic frequencies" - is this at all useful, or is it gibberish? And if it's gibberish, is it at all salvageable? It feels like it's edging on the pseudoscience. DS (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Is the [Music theory] article of importance to you?

Dear members of the Project Music theory, the Talk:Music_theory#Cultural globalization? page recently raised questions which I think shoud interest you (or else you should not be here). Please go read them, and do participate in the exchange. Your advice is much needed. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Submediant

Seeing how dormant this WikiProject is, I fear that this comment will have no effect at all. Nevertheless:

Please see Talk:Submediant § Relative minor, concerning Submediant's failure to so much as mention the significance of the relation between the relative major and minor keys. I am not able to boldly go and add it, as my grounding in musical theory is only very basic. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. -- Thnidu (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Hi Thnidu, I also feel like this is a problem (I just checked the article and it still fits the description you gave). I would be hopeful for the revitalization of this WikiProject, if it is as dormant as you said it was almost four months ago. Music theory is a great passion of mine, and something I've been blessed to be able to dissect greatly out of my own independent industry, study, and accord. I made a thread below you last night, discussing the inadequacy I perceive in musical analysis of songs on this website. I feel like you might have some things to say, ideas to pose, with regards to that. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --CPGACoast (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Song articles really grind my gears on this website.

Hi everyone,

My name is Soji (my username CPGACoast -- it's a reference from when I was eleven to my two favorite amusement parks), and I take issue with a lot of the composition sections for songs on this website (if they are even present for an article in the first place). Look at the article for My Life. That is a really musically interesting composition! A repeating modulation between D major and Bb major over a four-chord progression (D - Gm/F - EbM7 - B? - A5)? That is so interesting -- it toys with major and minor to the point of frenzy. Will you see any mention of it there? None. "Uptown Girl", a song with several key changes, some abrupt and others sequential, is also void of any musical insight. Look at this article for "Stupid Girl" by Garbage. I wrote almost the entirety of that Composition section on my own about four years ago (you can search the edit history for proof). Is there some subjective insight in it? Yes, but it is rooted in observation of countless other songs and supported by commonly accepted theory, as referred to in the articles it links. I feel like this is what I wish more song articles would follow suit in providing.

I feel like, with music, people are apathetic toward looking into its science, and are more willing to dissect what is more immediately observable or assessable, like the lyrics of a song. Even a song like "Life on Mars" by David Bowie, there is at least some dissection of the song's semantic meaning, and its origins with regards to that, but nothing about how the song builds in terms of musical tension to a soaring Neapolitan chord (C?M7), which resolves quite surreally to the subdominant key, which then also undergoes several modal shifts, before resolving back to F major. It's a rather notable song... you would think that it wouldn't be left to just sit in mysticism, that its mystery might be dissected -- not for the sake of cold calculation, but so its beauty can be put further into words. There are also songs where error or misinterpretation, due to using sheet music websites as gospel, are taken as undeniable fact: for the song "Hand in Glove" by The Smiths, you'll notice under Composition that there is a disclaimer explaining how the transcription of the song transposes the song to E minor. That's because the chords were initially written as though the song were in this key, even though the recording implies F blues and G minor. I had to concede for the article on "Ray of Light" by Madonna, which states that the chords B and E are in the (primarily) B? major song. (The song's vocal range also ignores Madge's B?₅ belt that comes during the outro, which, as far as I can tell, is the highest note she's ever meticulously sung.) We don't need to source a mathematical equation, so why should we need to source musical analysis when an observant expert can very easily correct misinformation?

I feel like there is a tendency to treat music as incapable of interpretation, which is just not true. Music is rooted in acoustics, which is not a pseudoscience by any measure. I've been lucky enough to have the wherewithal to study the nature of music on my own, through my own industry and investigation, but I recognize that not everyone might have that or be predisposed to that, or have that opportunity to do so on their own. It only takes an open and observant ear to analyze a song's composition and arrangement, and I feel like many musicians, as well as people with just a general curiosity, could use analyses like the one I provided for the Garbage song to their advantage. I just feel like we shouldn't be afraid of depth with these articles -- not just theory, but depth: what does this song mean to you, and how does that resonate through the music? How does the sonic content of the song impact you in ways that another song wouldn't? Of course we can't make it too personal, but I see no wrong in expanding upon the context that the music creates. We do that about literature, yes? Or paintings? So why not music? Let's not just discuss things as dubious as the now-largely-obsolete science around key coloration (there's a whole article, for instance, on Beethoven and C minor -- indeed, what I'm saying very well could apply to classical and jazz pieces too), but subjects that have more nuance and dynamism to them, like modality, how major and minor, which are modalities themselves, can be manipulated spectrally, how the angularity of prime numerical time signatures and phrase lengths can be used to effect (versus a binary or ternary meter), how electronic dance music, namely electropop, likes to emphasize a major key in its melody while emphasizing a minor key in its harmony, etc.; lots of subjects. I'd just like to see more thought put into musical analyses on music articles, namely those of songs. I feel it could really come in handy. --CPGACoast (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

metric modulation being compared with a computer language assignment statement

I think there is a problem making this comparison for a couple of reasons: (Disclosure: I am a software engineer with quite a few languages under my belt.)

Firstly, the comparison will be lost on most people. Only those who understand what assignment statements in a computer program will understand it. Secondly, there are many computer languages and the semantics of x = y; is specific to each language. For example x = f(y); evaluates a function f() and replaces the value of x with the result but also x = y can be the definition of a macro wherein the meaning, not the content, of x changes.

I like the idea behind the comparison, it's just that computer languages as a collection is probably too muddy to make it very clear. Ttellerx (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)ttellerx

I didn't catch that statement which I don't like at all. Metric modulation is more like a device in language where you construct certain syllables from which a different meaning emerges rather than the apparent meaning (sort of like acronyms which are understandable words as well as abbreviations). There is a word for this technique, but I don't recall it. - kosboot (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that the comparison questioned by Ttellerx is this one:

"This notation is also normally followed by the new tempo in parentheses. This is analogous with the assignment in imperative computer languages: {x = f(x);} ? {xnew = f(xold);}"

But a notation of the type = . involves no change of tempo! If the tempo was, say, =120 before the change, it becomes .=120 after the change. It is not the tempo that changes, but the subdivisions of the beat. The , which lasted 0,25 second (1/240 of a minute) before the change, now has a duration of 0,17 second (1/360 of a minute), but the tempo is not changed.

The notation = . means that any note value after the change has a duration of 2/3 the same note value before the change. This could be expressed by something like x_new = 2/3 x_old, which might justify a more general expression of the type x_new = f(x_old), but I doubt that that would make things more understandable. And, obviously, x_new = f(x_old) is of the type x = f(y) (with x = x_old and y = x_new). But why make things simple if they can be made complex?

As to whether such changes are legitimately termed "metric modulations", which seems to be the question raised by kosboot, I have no opinion. I don't think the term is really needed, but it appears to exist, so the existence of the article can be justified. I never used the expression "metric modulation", and I see no reason why I should. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Monteverdi peer review

User:Brianboulton and I have sought to significantly expand, and improve the quality of, the article on Claudio Monteverdi and would be very grateful for any comments at the Peer Review which we have just launched here. Many thanks, Smerus (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Claudio Monteverdi for FA

Following a very helpful peer review, Brianboulton and I have now resolved to subject the article to an FA candidature, and welcome all and any constructive comment. --Smerus (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Music theory articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. There might be as few as one page in the category, or zero if someone has removed the expert request tag from the page. -- Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia