Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music terminology Information & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music terminology Links at HealthHaven.com

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant, or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion regarding the subject, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump proposals page.

[edit] Earliest discussion

Should this be a Wikipedia: page? Or be merged with Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums? Or...?

Very probably. Though it should be made clear that these aren't "official" guidelines (or guideline) or a generally accepted policy (it's not been discussed anywhere that I know of). --Camembert

As far as a guide to terminology, this page is pretty useless. Compare the amount of actual guiding information to the mathematics guides... I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, is there a better place for this, should there be an official guide???Hyacinth

The old first paragraph: "There are a lot of different schools of thought about how to speak about music, from the symbolic nomenclature of classical musicology, to the Lead Sheet Analysis methods used by East Coast jazz musicians (largely influenced by The Berklee College of Music), to the stripped down practicality found in pop music abbreviations, common to West Coast studio musicians and certain editions of The Real Book. See: chord symbols." Hyacinth 01:27, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Crochets, Minims, ??????

Can we please banish whatever these crochets, minims, and quavers are?? I minored in piano performance in college, took voice lessons, and have been active in music my whole life, and I have NEVER heard of any of these!!!!!! Revolver 20:03, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Crotchet", "minim" and so on are what we call "quarter notes", "half notes" and so on in Britain, and probably in other parts of the world that speak British English. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling allows the use of any variety of English, so no, we cannot banish them. --Camembert

Well, let me ask this. Are the people who use "crochet", (whatever they're called) also familiar with "half note", "quarter note", etc.? If they are, it doesn't make much sense to use terminology that's only used by certain people, instead of terminology that everyone at least KNOWS what they mean. I literally mean, North American musicians (at least, to my knowledge) literally may NEVER have heard these terms. It seems rather strange to use terms that are completely unfamiliar to those trained in the subject, when other common terms are available. Revolver 20:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

All I'm saying is, it's very strange that I'm a musician, and yet any music article I read with these terms, I literally have to stop and go back to the rhythm page, or remember what "demi-hemi-semi" means, it takes me forever to read anything. Revolver 20:23, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I do not recall being taught the "half, quarter" etc terminology in basic music lessons which everybody had (up to the age of 14), so I would say it is very likely indeed that many people who know what a crotchet is do not know what a quarter note is. I think that many Brits will find "quarter note" as confusing as you find "crotchet" (when it comes to thirty-second notes and smaller divisions, I get a bit confused myself). --Camembert

I believe you when you say you were never exposed to "half, quarter". Here's a question -- what terms do international groups of performers (international symphonies, etc.) use most of the time? My guess is that they probably end up using whatever the conductor feels like using, and they have learned to be familiar with both. Of course, that is their profession. I would be very interested to know what terms are most often used in parts of the world that don't use British English, nor North American English.

Perhaps initially, many Brits will find "quarter note" as confusing as I find "crotchet", but I find it hard to imagine how you can argue that it is equally difficult to learn American from British as British from American. Which is easier for the reader to learn/remember?:

League, mile, furlong, yard, foot, inch
Kilometer, meter, centimeter, millimeter

Americans are constantly being told they should stop using the former and change over to the latter when talking to the rest of the world, and in large part, I fully agree. Remembering a single unit (meter) with everything in powers of 10 is much, much easier to deal with then 6 different unrelated terms; I prefer metric system, having been raised on the former.

Although it's certainly easier to go by how one was taught, it seems clear in this case which system makes the most logical sense. There is only a single "unit of measurement" in American (discounting the breve, and even this is often called "double whole note"), and everything is then based on powers of 2, or groupings of 3, 5, etc. Not only this, the American names match the notation used everywhere for time signature -- the bottom number tells you the unit of rhythm that is assigned a single beat. 3/2 => half-note is beat; 4/4 or 3/4 => quarter note is a beat; 6/8 or 9/8 => 8th note is a beat; (Sorry, I know you understand this, I'm giving examples for others who may be reading.) How many 64th notes per 8th note? Easy -- 64/8 = 8. How many 32nd notes in a single measure in 3/4 time? Easy, (32/4) x 3 = 24. And so on. This way just makes mathematical sense; try doing this with the terms "breve", "minim", "crotchet", and "quaver". Maybe the two terminologies can coexist -- I tend to think this is a bad idea, but that's because I tend to view this issue like I would a mathematical terminology issue, where it is general policy that everyone adopt uniform terminology and definitions. Still, many readers are going to be inconvenienced either way; if they're going to be inconvenienced, why not inconvenience them toward the way that makes more sense?

Revolver 23:26, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To answer the question, looking in my German dictionary, they translate "quarter note" as Viertelnote and "quarter rest" as Viertelpause, which is admittedly only a small bit of evidence in favor of American usage. One language does not a standard make... --Jemiller226 20:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reading over my last response, I'm afraid I sound a bit pushy. Of course both terminologies can coexist, and making links to the articles for half-note, quarter-note, etc. shouldn't make it difficult to indicate meaning. Wikipedia is maybe not the place for advocating that everyone adopt a certain terminology, although in this particular case, I really do believe the archaic British terms would be best discarded, for the reasons given above. (This is meant somewhat seriously -- such decisions for a (global) community to adopt uniform terms and notations is common in mathematics and science.) Maybe the argument above should better be taken as to why I think one should be preferred, although of course, I have no control over whether people adopt this preference. Revolver 04:07, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and, unless we hear otherwise, I would encourage you to edit the article adding a paragraph or something to the effect that Wikipedia prefers the use of "half etc". Currently all the english terms redirect to the american, so that is current policy I say we just make it explicit.Hyacinth 01:02, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's true that these articles are currently at quarter note and so on rather than crotchet and so on, but there's no policy saying that's what we should call them in articles. The closest we have to any existing policy is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling which, as I said above, allows British and American English equally.

The way to avoid confusion for everybody, I suppose, is to give both versions of the names the first time you mention them in an article. So one could write, for example, "a repeated rhythmic figure consisting of a minim (half note) followed by a dotted crotchet (quarter note) and a quaver (eighth note)" or alternatively "a repeated rhythmic figure consisting of a half note (minim) followed by a dotter quarter note (crotchet) and an eighth note (quaver)". Either would be fine. As I say, there's only a need to do this the first time in each article - once you've established that the half note and the minim are the same thing, there's no need to keep hammering it home every time you mention them.

I mean, I personally can live with "quarter note" and so on even though it's a bit less familiar to me, but seriously, I've seen people get very jumpy about American/British English differences, even to the point of threatening to leave the project should it adopt a "we prefer American spellings" policy. An official policy on this would, I think, cause problems. That said, of course, what people do in articles is their own business... ;) --Camembert

To me, there is a definite difference between conflicts over spellings and this. The distinction here is more than a spelling or terminology change, because as I said, the American is built more on "how music works". This is the reason why I favour a preference for American. (See, this isn't anti-Brit thing, I spell some British often, mainly because of math papers and reading a lot of British authors.) So, if there's an article where one is just as doable as the other, there's no point in getting worked up. But I do think that in articles where there's a lot of discussion over time (meter) signatures, rhythm, rhythm notation, beats, and so on, it is very possible that the American terminology could make the article easier to understand, because of its conceptual simplicity, and I believe this justification for a change in a terminology in a particular article would go beyond a simple "I was brought up this way, so it's all just a matter of preference". It's not -- one way is easier to use. But I'm not going to make a big fuss about it, most of the time. Revolver 01:04, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yah, meant practice, not policy. Good points, I now agree. Would you mind creating the text which says one will not be prefered over the other though in practice the American system now prevails, and the parantheses rule? Hyacinth 23:49, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem, but not tonight (I'm off to bed in a bit)--I'll do it tomorrow if nobody else does it first. --Camembert

<Opus33>: May I register a polite "grrr..." to some of the above remarks? I think any American music lover who also likes to read about music should take the trouble to familiarize him/herself with "crotchet"/"quaver", etc. There's a lot of good stuff written on music that uses these terms.

<Revolver, later>: That would be even better if written in American terms.

<Opus33 continues:>: Further afield, I fail to see the payoff in behaving like a stereotypical narrow-minded American. Insisting that Brits etc. use "quarter note" etc. counts, in my opinion, as such behavior. Mah fellow Amurricans, please broaden your horizons!

<Revolver>: This is not a matter of "broadening horizons". As I said above, it's a matter of advocating a terminology that is both conceptually simpler to understand pedagogically easier to learn. I fail to see the payoff in behaving like a stereotypical Brit. Insisting that your British terms "crotchet", "quaver" are somehow "just as easy to learn and understand" as American terms, when you are presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, counts as such behavior. This is tantamount to a stereotypical American, insisting against all evidence to the contrary, that the system of "miles, yards, feet, inches, pounds, ounces, etc.", is just as easy to learn and understand as the standard metric units used by scientists! Mah fellow Brits, please admit your terms are inferior!

Are you really saying that for someone who has never read or known anything about music, that the two ways are equally difficult or easy to learn???? That's preposterous.

<Opus33>: If the Wikipedia simply puts the equivalent name of a note in parentheses, it will do readers a favor by helping them to understand other material they read. Thanks for listening, cordially, Opus33 16:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

<Revolver>: Certainly, we should help people so they can understand any material they come across that uses non-standard terminology. But that doesn't mean we should revert to non-standard ourselves. Does anyone here actually believe it would be okay to go back to all the science articles and change them all the "miles, feet, pounds, ounces"? I don't think it would go over well. Revolver 21:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But really, in all seriousness, I think my strong feelings about this issue are not so much a result of being a "narrow-minded stereotypical American" or of having some kind of issues with the British (which is nonsense; I have British friends and acquaintances, love Fawlty Towers and Touching Evil (the original British TV show), and adore Hitchcock.) I think it's much more a result of me being a mathematician. Although there is always some slight differences in terminology amongst research mathematicians, by and large, terminology is more or less uniform after a certain amount of time, and for good reason -- if everyone were allowed to use their own colloquial terminology, meaningful communication in mathematics would eventually break down and grind to a halt. Giving up your terminology in math is something usually done out of sheer popularity, or else for good mathematical reasons that justify it, and it's not usually taken personally (well, it normally isn't). The kind of linguistic morass that I've discovered with regard to musical notation and terminology (this is not just about rhythm terms, there are tons of other differences) would never get to such a state in mathematics; in fact, I find it kind of astonishing that any community would allow such a state to develop. This is a much an indictment of American musicians as British. Revolver 23:42, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Revolver, thanks for your reply. I think your "rational terminology" project is well-conceived in the abstract ("quarter note" certainly is easier to learn), but it is hopeless in practice: British English is not going to change just because the Wikipedia says they should! We're stuck with the dialects we've got, and in such a situation I feel we will serve all our readers best if we clue them in to both national terminologies. Cheers, Opus33 03:47, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, I would never think Wikipedia would have the power to change the usage of millions of people! Nor did I ever think we should leave readers clueless by not mentioning a particular usage! That wasn't really the point. My point was that for people who have never learned or read music before, one set of terms makes it easier to teach and instruct, that's all, and that was the reason. Of course, I don't have any doubt I can pick up the British terms fairly quickly, but then again, I've been reading music since I was 5. I was thinking about non-musicians. As for being "stuck with the dialects we've got", this is more a reflection of the fact that communication in music can withstand multiple linguistic conventions without grinding to a halt...as I said, in other areas, esp. math, "dialects" in a particular field are eliminated at times. I might say that for most of the musical terminology differences between British and American English, there doesn't seem to me to be such a reason for preferring one over the other, so in most of the other cases where there's a difference, it doesn't matter to me, or at least, I wouldn't have any preference for everyone to start using one vs. the other. Revolver 19:01, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Revolver. I have nothing more to contribute to the debate right now, but maybe others will have views... Opus33 21:25, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Re. Camembert's proposed:

"crotchet, quaver, minim" and the American "quarter note, eighth note, half note" are acceptable in articles, though the American forms are more common in practice. Whichever form is used, place the other in parentheses the first time it comes up for clarity, eg: "There is a minim (half note) followed by two crotchets (quarter notes)"

This strikes me as clear, reader-friendly, and tactful. Opus33 03:22, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine. I don't know why I make mountains out of molehills...the internet has a way of doing that (for me, at least.) Revolver 20:31, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To Revolver: Gee, as formal as my musical training got was public-school grade-2 "music appreciation," and I knew those words 'cause they were on the back cover of the generic music notebook (scribbler-like paper interleaved with staff-lined paper) we got at the drugstore. 'Course that was in 1970s Canada, which Yanks will consider British =p I *am* wondering, though, where ornaments get discussed: mordant, trill, nachschlag, shake, turn, etc (no, I didn't know those at 8.) 142.177.171.224 18:21, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

To 142.177.171.224: There is an article at Ornamentation which covers some of these. To my eye, it could use some elaboration and ornamentation itself... in particular, there are a lot more from 17th century performance practice which could be included (I'm no expert, I always fake 'em when I play) Antandrus 18:30, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

It's ornament (music), and yes, it is, like everything else, a work in progress :) --Camembert

The solution now contradicts the Manual of Style's usage guidelines for British vs. American English. I think the best solution is to simply let the original author choose which terms to use, but to link them so someone can click on them to get more information. I think putting the alternatives in parentheses is inelegant and breaks up the flow of the text. – flamurai (t) 20:22, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear, another area of "let's do away with the established system used by everyone else in favour of our own dumbed down one!" The terms minim, crotchet, quaver etc have been in use for centuries and have been understood by all of the musical world, including such renowned people as MacDowell, Gershwin and Copland, who all accepted it without complaint. (And for those who may not recognise it they are names associated with American music of its time). And given the state of modern arithmetic for the majority of younger people, I would strongly suggest that there is no value in having terminology which even hints at fractions as a means of making it easier to calculate relative time periods!

Likewise, communication between musicians of different cultures is definitely not moved forward by this new American method. Is a Japanese speaking musician to use the term "sixteenth note" in order to speak like an American, or does he use the Japanese translation of this? If the first, you are merely replacing one set of technical terms for him to learn with another set equally incomprehensible to him in which case he does note benefit at all. If the latter, communication between us is still just as impossible as before as we each have incompatible terms for the same thing, so we are no better off. But I guess I could predict which you will prefer.

For God's sake just bite the bullet, stop whingeing or being so patriotically arrogant, and just for once, sit down and fit in with the rest of the world in what it does and has always done. Or if learning a handful of musical names is beyond you, just use your own child friendly system for yourselves and stop trying to force it on everyone else. The best of the original musical forms to come from America, Ragtime, Blues, Jazz, Rap, have a limited need for a notation system anyway. They are improvisational. For the more mainstream musical forms, the music world's existing system works and works well, as every great composer up to Lennon and McCartney has shown. It is a successful means of expressing relative times and it gives us a pleasant link to our musical heritage without any penalty involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.236.198 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Draft of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music)

I have started a draft of a music manual of style at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music). It is my intention to cover broad issues in the MoS, and leave the technical usage to this project. Let me know your opinions. – flamurai (t) 20:24, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Septachord

Shouldn't it be heptachord? Wahoofive 21:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds right. Hyacinth 22:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notes, note values

note vs tone vs pitch vs pitch class - note and tone are used to refer to the pitch of individual sounds without using a homonym and to be more or less specific than the term sound

Suggested replacement:

note vs tone vs pitch vs pitch class - note refers to a written symbol on the staff, whereas pitch refers to the sounding frequency (although the note page properly points out that musicians use the word note carelessly for both). Tone should be avoided. Pitch class should only be used in the context of set theory.

crotchet, minim, quaver, etc vs quarter note, half note, etc -

Suggested additional text:

Note value is the generic category encompassing these. Note value : duration :: note : pitch.

Also, this section should be right underneath "note, tone...".

Having a page on Note value would also allow us to explain dotted notes, which I don't think appear anywhere. There's a disambiguation page for Dot, but it doesn't mention music, and I can't think where to redirect to.--Wahoofive 22:00, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, it would make sense to consolidate all the separate pages for half note, quarter note, and so on into a single page. --Wahoofive 22:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rhythm and meter

Aspects of music: pitch, duration, timbre, intensity - duration and intensity prefered over rhythm and volume, respectively

Duration isn't the same thing as rhythm. Duration is the temporal length of a single note (or piece), whereas rhythm is a pattern or sequence of such durations. We should avoid speaking of the rhythm of a single note, but the rhythm of a measure is certainly different from the duration of that measure.

Need a line on meter, such as:

Meter, duple/triple meter, simple/compound meter, mixed meter, polymeter, always preferred to "triple time" or "6/8 time" or "compound time." Time signature is only a symbol indicating meter.

--Wahoofive 22:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roman numerals

Removed this paragraph from the top:

Toward this end, the usage of Classical analytical notation for all such purposes within the Wikipedia has been suggested. While the system does have its limitations, particularly with respect to jazz and modern classical music, it is the most widely understood by musicologists and it is something with which most students or former students have at least a passing familiarity. To clarify, this is the notational system in which major chords are indicated with a capitalized Roman numeral, minor chords are indicated with a lower case Roman numeral, and inversions are indicated through the use of figured bass. See: chord symbol.

I've included something about Roman numerals under the "analysis" section, but I can't see why this should get such priority at the top. Roman numerals don't come up nearly as often as words like note, duration, scale, mode, and so on. —Wahoofive | Talk 16:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] simultaneity

For 9, why do we use Latin nona- even though the general rule is Greek?? Georgia guy 18:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Good question. We at Wikipedia use it because it's the academic standard. Why it was adopted in the first place, I couldn't say. What would the Greek-derived equivalent be? —Wahoofive (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The true Greek prefix for 9 is ennea-. For some unknown reason, in chemistry, nona- is official even though inconsistent in that it comes from Latin. I've been wondering why. Does anyone have any Internet pages talking about why?? Georgia guy 19:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-Class and good B-Class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Articles like Atonality, for example, look to be at least B-class. Can you recommend any suitable articles on music terminology? If this Wikiproject also has any FAs, we are looking for those as well. Please post your suggestions here. Cheers!--Shanel 20:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inactivity

Somebody just slapped an "inactive" notice on this project. Rather than just remove it, I've been thinking that the problem is that this isn't really a WikiProject in the way that most projects are. Rather, it's a Manual of Style for music vocabulary. We have a germ of such a manual, and probably should start working on combining the info in here into that. Who'd like to join me? —Wahoofive (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What one earth does this mean, and why shouldn't it be removed?

- triad, seventh chord, etc. appropriate in context

On the matter of US/German quarter notes etc. vs everyone else's 'crotchets' etc, they will both need to be used. Tony 01:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This page needs a lot of work. Tony 02:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your last statement, Tony. This is primarily a terminology reference, so "triad" and "seventh chord" are listed as legitimate terms to be used, "in context" because a four-note chord might be a "tetrachord" in many contexts. It still might not be necessary to have it, but that's my understanding of its meaning. What you said about crochets and the like is already there under "general usages". —Wahoofive (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to "Glossary of Music terminology"

I was originally looking for just such a list as this, at List of glossaries. With just a little cleanup, this page would fit in there perfectly. Plus then we could link to it from other mainspace articles (as it would no longer be a selfref), and would hence see more activity.

So, I suggest you cleanup and move this wikiproject page to: Glossary of music terminology. Thanks :) -Quiddity 01:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agree on Move - Proposition to Integrate and Delete

This is not a Wikiproject. A Wikiproject is an umbrella, a sort of home base from which people working on articles centered on a given topic do all their work. This is indeed a style manual, and I propose an integration of this Wikiproject into the Manual of Style: Music. I will wait a week for any pertinent comments, and after that time I will begin the integration and the deletion of this Wikiproject. -Aerlinndan 04 August 2006

[edit] Samples for music teory

A valuable addiction would be to add some example audio files to better explain the articles in Category:Music theory and Category:Musical terminology.--BMF81 14:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Membership

There are basically two criteria used to determine if a project is inactive and/or qualifies for deletion. These are no activity on the project page for 3 months and no listed members of the project. Right now, this project has no place for members to sign on, and has thus gotten no listed members. Please remedy this situation as soon as possible. Badbilltucker 22:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is has been corrected. -- Ci e lomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homophony

This article is fairly central to the scope of the WikiProject, I'd think, and it needs a bit of help. It's up as a FAC, but so far, it's failing, so if anyone has the knowledge to make the requested changes, please help. -- Ci e lomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 23:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diatonic and chromatic

The terms "diatonic" and "chromatic" are the cause of serious uncertainties at several Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged! – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update on state

Related to the merge/MoS threads above at #Inactivity, this page seems to have been completely superseded by

Updates, activity, and discussion, should be all be directed at those pages. I'm also going to re-propose at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music) at these 2 pages get merged. --Quiddity 18:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Low C and Deep C

I have nominated these two pages for deletion. Feel free to join the discussion.Nrswanson (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles on intervals: tidy up

I recently stumbled across the various articles about augmented and diminished triads, fifths, etc. It looks as though they are in quite severe need of significant editing, tidying up, and the application of consistent frameworks. Early on they launch into detailed discussions of different temperaments, cents, etc. Really... should the average user have to be confronted with the "septimal kleisma" so early in such articles?

Wouldn't it be better to agree that we try to guide the reader gently into the subject? Could we assume that the start of the article be towards helping (say) early teenage school homework or classwork? Such a person probably views both music theory and mathematics with equal boredom and lack of interest (perhaps even hostility). So let's try to captivate their imagination. The last thing we should do is push the fractional-power exponent mathematics of the "septimal kleisma" in their face at the start of an article! Rather let our priority be to try to help them from where they start.

Propose:

Recognise that this terminology (augmented, minor, perfect, etc.) primarily refers to "Common practice period" (leave mention of other eras and cultures until later);
Recognise that detailed discussion of temperaments is a specialised topic, of little interest to the majority of reader (beware of placing too prominently in article);
Common framework for the "interval"-based articles, for instance something like:
- Structure of chord (in "common practice period")
- Use of chord, including resolutions, modulations (in "common practice period")
- Historical development of chord (prior to, and since, "common practice perid")
- Tuning, temperament issues
- Use in other cultures (non-"common practice period")
Common templates.

Thoughts? Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scale degrees

Regarding "avoiding scale degree numbers unless describing a melody where the names above would be awkward", there are many pages that deal with theory, scales, modes, etc. that are complex enough to make it worthwhile I think. Examples:

"The Locrian mode has the formula 1, b2, b3, 4, b5, b6, b7." (Locrian mode)
"The French sixth (Fr + 6 or Fr_3^4) is like the Italian, but with an additional tone on scale degree 2 (♭6, 1, 2, ♯4)" (Augmented_sixth_chord)

I think one of the main advantages of using scale degrees, especially with the hats, is in articles dealing with theory, especially those with Roman numerals, figured bass and scale degrees in close proximity. This is the fussy analyst in me coming out, but musicians are nothing if not fussy. Blehfu (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style guideline needed for opus numbers

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (music)#Abbreviation of "opus". Finell (Talk) 21:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Contents