Talk:Enharmonic keyboard

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Musical Instruments Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A regular keyboard has 88 keys, but this keyboard would have 124. Is this number right?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to add the clause that 'Enharmonic keyboard' is a term used by some modern scholars (mostly the Italian Patrizio Barbieri and his successors) for keyboard instruments with more than 12 keys in octave. Vicentino (as well as many other builders of keyboard instruments of the period) never used it (you won't find any 'enarmonica tastatura' in his treatise). On the other side, there were lots of keyboard instruments in the 16th century with more than 12 keys which have been originally called 'chromatic' (the excellent article on them was written by Chris Stembridge). To be consequent, we should then extrapolate that (convenient and disseminated) 'cimbalo cromatico' had 'enharmonic keyboard', which is a nonsense. Olorulus (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because of vagueness of the English term 'enharmonic keyboard' I suggest to define it according to some or other English-speaking encyclopedic source, as e.g. Harvard Dictionary of Music, or (better?) New Grove. I fixed this proposal in my version of the definition as of 22 October 2012:

Enharmonic keyboard is according to

Enharmonic keyboard, as important device to compose, play and study enharmonic music, may produce microtones <...> Commator

As an (only) source of this definiton a fragment of some journal review of R.Rasch had been given, which (compared to majority of other scholar opinions) I find very specific:

Enharmonic music is music <...> that is mostly to be found in the surroundings of enharmonic instruments. Without those instruments nearby, it makes little sense to produce such music (R.Rasch)

This claim is essentially not definitive (and was not intended to be one), it is just a polemic opinion, and it immediately gives rise to lots of question, first, 'what IS enharmonic music?', second 'should the number of keys on a cembalo be a criterion for a genera melorum, third, the Rasch's claim that music of enharmonic genus cannot be produced without a (keyboard?) instrument contradicts historical facts (Greeks did not know cembalos and alike).

Also, the expression of Rasch looks rather speculative: 'the enharmonic music is a music played on enharmonic instrument'. To define one vagueness through another vagueness could be welcomed by a regular sophist but cannot be considered a vocabulary definition.

To sum up, I'd prefer more cautious approach and would limit the definition of 'enharmonic keyboard' to one or another music dictionary (as e.g. suggested above) Olorulus (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the business of Wikipedia editors to put forward their own ideas of what might or might not be "the correct" definition of something. We cite

reliable sources (such as the Harvard Dictionary or New Grove, as suggested). If two or more such sources take contradictory positions, then we do not choose between them, but present both (or all) sides, in as neutral a manner as possible—even if we believe they are all wrong. So, if what you are saying is that an editor is substituting his own, personal definition for one documented from a reliable source, the this is unsupportable on two grounds: first because of the removal of verified material from a sound source, and second because of the insertion of an unverified claim. If on the other hand this replacement is itself referenced to a reliable source, then the issue has to do only with a deliberate imbalance created by removing a conflicting but well-substantiated point of view.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Let me add that the type of reasoning that leads to define the enharmonic keyboard as one with more than 12 keys per octave is as follows: (1) a keyboard is a typical feature of Occidental music; (2) Occidental music, if conceived in Equal Temperament, counts no more than 12 pitches per octave; (3) any additional key on a keyboard is bound to replicate one of the existing ones, usually in order to propose an enharmonic equivalent (e.g. Db instead of C#). CQFD. Such a keyboard may involve split keys, but other dispositions exist. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hucbald, that is a constructive observation. In the meantime, I have been asked on my Talk page by one of the main disputants in the recent editorial quarrel for some assistance. As I said there, I have taken a long, hard look at the edit history of this article from the very beginning on 24 October 2005, and in particular to the epic battle between User:Olorulus and User:Commator that erupted in early October 2012 and, thankfully, quieted down in time for the Christmas holidays. There were a lot of intemperate remarks and unjustified reversions, which neither of them should be proud of. Within this cloud of strife, I can see that there are some important differences of opinion, but the first thing has got to be to sort out the article according to Wikipedia guidelines. First, the lede section should be nothing but a summary of the main points discussed in the body of the article itself. If it does this, it should not require any inline references at all. Second, the main body of the article should not begin with an announcement of widespread disagreement, but with a definition of the subject in as plain and uncontroversial a way as can be managed. (This is where those reliable sources, like the Harvard Dictionary or the New Grove should be cited.) Then (and only then) should any controversy be introduced. The differences of opinion should be clearly stated, and the arguments for each side should be briefly summarized, and documented. As Wikipedia editors, it is not our business to judge whether Rasch or Barbieri or anybody else is right or wrong but, if they are in conflict with each other or with the usual authorities, then we should explain these differences to readers as cogently as possible.

The place to start is undoubtedly with the definition section. Once that is hammered out to everyone's satisfaction, the lede can be written to conform. Later sections on differing views of what an enharmonic keyboard really should be can then be worked out, and once these issues have been made clear, a brief mention can be added to the lede (or not, if it does not seem very helpful to understanding the basic concept).

There is also a conflict over referencing formats. This only adds to the general confusion, but fortunately can be sorted out separately, and with clearer Wikipedia guidelines than for the other issues. I have not yet determined what the first-established format for this article was but, according to

WP:CITEVAR, it should be restored, until and unless consensus is obtained that it should be changed to something else. This includes replacement of manually formatted citations with templates, if adding those templates produced a change in format.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

==

It is not the business of Wikipedia editors to put forward their own ideas of what might or might not be "the correct" definition of something. Jerome Kohl

==

This was exactly my point as a topic starter, that is to be as neutral as possible. Also, I see nothing 'epic' in defending of the state-of-the-art of the discussed (polemic) subject. Look, a user Commator relies on a Rasch's review of the book of Barbieri, which supports his (Rasch's) concept of mystical 'enharmonic music'. How this correlates to a 'neutral' rendering of the subject, frankely, I am not able to get your point. Olorulus (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]