Talk:Flat (music)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flat (music) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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

Music theory This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis 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.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

i hope you and maybe camembert will be able to flesh this out... dgd 20:28, 25 October 2002

This will probably get integrated with sharp and note and some point. I'm still trying to figure out the best way to do this; see talk:note. -- Merphant

True or false: the bottom of this article can move to Flat (disambiguation). 66.245.107.192 23:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The section, beginning, "The word flat also has other, unrelated uses:" has since been removed. Hyacinth (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the double-flat exist? 66.21.216.246 21:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be convenient for lowering a note a semitone that is already flat due to the key -- this is often to make the harmony or the chord more clear to the reader. That is, if you are in D flat major and you want a diminished chord (1-3flat-5-flat), you may put a double flat on the A so as to make the type of chord clear. Also, on instruments that do not have equal temperment, a double-flat may not be exactly the same as its enharmonically equivalent value. DavidRF 23:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David,

Try writing down the scale for D♭ minor (and G♭ minor). To give each note a distinct letter you need B♭♭ (and E♭♭). Similarly major scales G#, D# and A# require Fx, Cx and Gx. Derwentdale (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And why should each tone have a distinct letter? Anyway, this is a very unusual case. These double-flats are diatonic. You had to go to very unusual keys. But there's a B-double-flat (V♭) already in E-flat major and then for every key going down the circle. Chromatic double-flats. Much more common. How about them? Contact Basemetal here 17:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you asked: why does the flat exist? Hyacinth (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added discussion on the "musical notation" page and was wondering why a b is used for notating a flat when a "b" is a step higher that "a" (Chevyfastback 06:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

See http://highhopes.com/musicsymbols.html and note that the natural and sharp signs are also derived from the character "B"... fascinating stuff. Andrewa (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In some languages, e.g. German, b is denoted "h" and b flat is denoted "b". E.g., the b Minor Mass by Bach, is called, in German, "h-moll Messe". It would be interesting to add this information.83.76.191.246 (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the two pages, Flat and Sharp, are nearly word-for-word equivalent. Now, I know that they are different items, but even from a musical perspective, they do the same thing to a note, and that is change the pitch of a note that is supposed to be played. It would make sense to move this page to something like Flat and sharp. Jared (t)  16:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about merging with accidental (music)? — Gwalla | Talk 04:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good idea. That might work better. Jared (t)  13:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep. The page should definitely not be merged with

natural sign. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

If sharp and flat are merged with accidental, natural should be merged in too. — Gwalla | Talk 23:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three only natural is invariably an accidental. The others are more often than not part of the key signature. 203.109.160.68 (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC) (Koro Neil)[reply]

See Talk:Accidental_(music)#Inflections_vs_accidentals. Hyacinth (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gwalla's suggestion: we should merge into Accidental (music). Reyk _YO! 03:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - an accidental is not identical to a flat (or sharp). The key signature will contain sharps and flats (except for Cmajor/Aminor of course) but these are not accidentals. Incidentally this article does need to discuss or at least mention (with a link) the role of flat/sharp symbols in the key signature, and to put the paragraph on the order of the flats in context. At the moment it is not clear what 'order of the flats' even means in this context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.234.218 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I suggest we perform the merge as discussed, but have a template note at the top of the article saying Sharp (music) and Flat (music) redirect here. For sharps and flats in key signatures, see Key signature or something to that effect. Reyk _YO! 00:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

or you name the original language or all of them. you can't mention two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.194.96 (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Bemolle" is the Italian word for "flat"; it's "bemol" in French and Spanish. − Glenn L (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Bemolle" is nearly absolute unknown in Germany. But we know that there has been (middle age) a B-molle (latin: soft B) and a B-durum (latin: hard B). Described as a musical note, the B-molle is the Bb drawn with a round belly and the B-durum is the B with a rectangular belly. This use has been transferred to other notes, and stands as a musical key signature for us now dispose. The square B, we see in the cross (sharp) again, and the B round in the small B (flat). Please excuse collect my rough translation, but the vocabulary I had to yet with the help of some translation programs.

compare: and Hexachord

however: Bmolle is not a German word, but a compound Latin word. and says "a soft B". Please correct this.

Greetings --Mjchael (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? This has still not corrected? Well, I have to make it just. Tested again the translation, and whether there is possibly a link to other articles on this topic. --Mjchael (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have been corrected because it is difficult to understand what you wrote above. Hyacinth (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Bemolle" is nearly absolute unknown in Germany. It's not a German word. Originally the word comes from the Latin. Even with my poor skills in English, it should at least be made ​​clear. --Mjchael (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure about the sentence "Sharps use the '♭' symbols because they traveled forward in time to American English". Is this meant as a joke? Faltenin (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See: Help:Page history. [1]. Despite the addition of the citation it is clearly vandalism. Hyacinth (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated

. Contributions and comments would be very welcome; decisions of this kind could affect the choice of title for many music theory articles.

NoeticaTea? 00:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See [2] for an example of triple flats (B) being used in a piece from 1914 (Nikolai Roslavets' Piano Sonata No. 1). Unusually, the double and triple flats in the score are "beamed"! Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Score at IMSLP Double sharp (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is dubious? Hyacinth (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the statement is dubious? Hyacinth (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I wasn't thinking properly. :-( It's strange that triple sharps have been used in Romantic music, but (AFAIK) triple flats haven't. (Still, this piece is still useful for discussing the notation of double and triple flats.) Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In tuning, flat can also mean "slightly lower in pitch". If two simultaneous notes are slightly out of tune, the lower-pitched one (assuming the higher one is properly pitched) is said to be flat with respect to the other.

This paragraph from the first section is apparently contradictory. It seems to say two notes played at the same time are both out of tune but then parentheticaly states that one may not be - from context the parenthetical makes more sense (being flat relative to the other note) but it can't be true that both are out of tune and one is not out of tune simultaneously. I don't know enough about the subject to be certain about what is intended - but it's not very clear as is.

216.226.184.94 (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Archena[reply]

Could somebody explain to me (a musical novice) why these are used? Isn't a double flat note just the note below, and a double sharp note the note above? For instance, wouldn't a double flat G be an F? And a double sharp F be a G? Confused. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The same question was raised and answered above at #Just curious. It's all about spelling conventions, mainly in the context of modulation and transposition. See also: Google. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I must object to the idea that it's "all about spelling conventions". It's actually about simple, obvious logic and about intonation. A Gbb is enharmonically equivalent to an F-natural, which means it represents the same acoustical pitch in equally-tempered tuning (and only in equally-tempered tuning), but it is not the same note. In non-equally-tempered tuning it doesn't even represent the same acoustical pitch, and even in equally-tempered tuning it does not have the same meaning. Meaning is not the same as convention. If you don't understand the difference between enharmonically equivalent notes, you don't understand Western music at its most basic level. TheScotch (talk) 05:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to Beethoven, who in Op. 78 dares to write G♮ in the left hand against F in the right, and in the Eroica turns the C♯ in his theme into D♭ without us being meant to know until we hear how it continues. Tell that to Mozart, who in the modulating passage in the slow movement of K. 543 doesn't actually care to get all the accidentals spelt correctly. Or even Schubert, for whom in the Rosamunde Quartet a repeated note is approached as G♯ and quitted instead as A♭, creating a deliberate ambiguity. By the time of the late 18th century there is clearly no difference at all made between enharmonic sharps and flats. They have become the same note, whose meaning is only illuminated by what follows, not how they are spelt. Double sharp (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Although very uncommon and only used in modern classical music, a triple flat (triple flat) can sometimes be found. It lowers a note three semitones.[4]"

This is another of the very many instances in Wikipedia of citation abuse. The citation does not say or suggest that triple flats occur only in "modern" music, and quite obviously there's no logical reason they should have to be restricted to "modern" music. (All sorts of augmented sixth chords, for example, existed in the Common Practice Period, and of course all augmented sixth chords include either the interval of an augmented sixth or its inversion, the diminished third. Let's consider an augmented sixth whose upper note happens to be G-flat. What must it's lower note be? B-triple-flat of course.) TheScotch (talk) 05:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no logical reason why nonstandard key signatures should be restricted to "modern" music. The key of G minor might logically be depicted with B♭, E♭, and F♯ in a key signature; and if one modulates a fifth up from C-sharp major and change the key signature to match, we should logically be in G-sharp major with its F. However, people are sane enough not to use theoretical keys. Thus your example is not exactly proving anything because while augmented sixths are common, one spelt in that tortuous way instead of invoking enharmonic equivalence would not be common.

Besides, what else would it be saying when the only two examples given for triple flats are both "modern"? Double sharp (talk) 10:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of this before and when searching on Google for this phrase only Wikipedia itself shows up with a page from Quora (that probably got it from Wikipedia). "Temporany" even shows up in the Sharp page. Wtf is up with that?? 2804:1B3:A581:EAFE:CFDB:F112:D4E0:D901 (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]