Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome to the WikiProject Music Theory discussion page. All questions and comments are welcome.

• 1. Adding project banner to relevent articles. (We are currently holding off on placing banners until some changes at Wikiproject Music regarding bannering is finished)
• 2. Organizing category system.
• 3. Organizing stub system.
• 4. Recruiting members.

This is a new project so really we are starting from scratch. Obviously articles already exist on topics related to music theory but assessment of those articles by the project has not been done yet. I think the first place to start would be the article on

talk

) 06:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a correct way of adding articles to the project? I've come across some articles (Chord notation for example) that seem to fit the bill, but didn't want to add them to the project willy-nilly. Red van man (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed a new structure to this WikiProject. It would turn the main project page into a who we are, what we do sort of thing, and provide a gateway to other areas that need attention. With this structure would come project subpages, such as:

• List of Categories (Wikiproject Music Theory/Categories). This page would display all of the categories relating to music theory, and what certain things should be categorized as.
• List of Stubs (Wikiproject Music Theory/Stubs). This page would show templates and code for stubs relating to music theory.
• List of Proposed Articles (Wikiproject Music Theory/Proposed articles). Articles that have not been created yet (may be redlinks) and we should focus on.
• List of Images (Wikiproject Music Theory/Images). Images that we approve of and that would be useful on articles relating to music theory.
• Recent Activity (Wikiproject Music Theory/Recent activity). Recent activity from the members of the group who need support from other members regarding the articles.
• List of Articles that need work (Wikiproject Music Theory/???). Articles that have been flagged as needing work to be done. This could be done via a template and categories.

So, what do you think?

Well I'm not necessarily sure that we need an extra page for stubs and categories. There really shouldn't be so many stubs and categories that we need a list on a seperate page. Ideally we really shouldn't be working with more than a maximum of 10 stubs and 10 categories (with the exclusion of sub-categories). A proposed article page would be absolutely fine but I personally think a better way to address that would be to follow

talk

) 19:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to submit "Tertian Harmony & Chord Manual" for use in developing the Music Theory here. It is in the files section at [1]. Currently one needs to have a yahoo account to view it, as well as a program that will handle *.tif files or the original software program in which it was published. I am willing to re-enter it here but need a start page. It is work across many decades. I did notice an article "Tertian", the 1st paragraph of which neglected some other theory which makes for easier reading. I placed a more lucid version of that paragraph on the discussion page for "Tertian". A search for "Tertian Harmony" also puts one at "tertian", and based on the deficiencies of "tertain" thus far, the total insertion of "Tertian Harmony & Chord Manual" under a seperate topic and/or page would possibly be easier. Edward Palamar (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I wlll/have posted reference to this also on the C article Talk page. While researching another matter, I stumbled on an error regarding voice ranges in one article only to discover it was not an error but something else on the page was. As I browsed from link to link I found that there is much inconsistency regarding the designation for pitches among the articles on music. Some use the so-called "scientific" notation, in which middle C on the piano is C4 and others use the more common/traditional designation among musicians of C3. The result is great confusion for the reader and various lurking errors. I have been a musician all my life and middle C has always been C3. In fact, behind me is the digital piano on which I compose, and middle C is marked with a discreet screened-on "C3" above it. I am not lobbying for one variant or another, only arguing for (1) consistency and (2) clear communication to the poor reader. I would propose that ALL music articles designating pitches by letter names should include a note that "(middle C on the piano is C4)" or whatever. Stirrer (talk) 14:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually C4 is middle C is standard

talk

) 19:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, IIRC, Cakewalk years ago used to call it C5, and as that was my first introduction to that style of pitch naming, I would always get confused by the other stuff. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind keeping my eyes open for this and putting Stirrer's suggested notice on anything I find. I doubt it will always be obvious which system is implied though (c', C3, C4, C5). I've even heard one suggestion that middle C should be C0 (zero). That actually makes sense to me, but I doubt it will catch on. I don't think the MIDI specification defines a connection between midi note numbers (ranging 0-127) and pitch. Middle C is defined as 60, but this is a mechanical designation rather than a pitch designation; individual programs may contain intentional transposition, detuning,

Just so we don't work at cross purposes, I'm letting everyone know I'm working off-line on a rewrite of voicing so you don't need to. It may take a week. -- Another Stickler (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, does anyone know of some free tools to make graphics of music notation? I want to generate examples of voicings. Also, how do I donate it to the commons and hook it into the article? -- Another Stickler (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many free music notation programs. Here’s a list. For your purposes Denemo or MuseScore should work fine. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a notice to let you know about

.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by

here

.

Thanks. —

WP Physics

} 09:26, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

What should the main subtopics be for an Outline of music theory?

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting

.

The Transhumanist 00:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Chord Progression

I just came across the

Chord Progression article, and it's nothing short of an ungodly mess. First, what do you guys think about changing the name of the article to Harmonic Progression instead? Secondly, it's in need of a complete rewrite. I have advanced training in music theory, have even considered a Ph.D in the subject, but even I was horribly confused by this article. Rheostatik (talk

) 16:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Chord progression" may be the more common term, although that could depend on whether we look at all sources in general, or in specifically theory-oriented sources. Powers ^T 18:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that theory-oriented sources should remain the focus, and all the books/articles I've perused through refer to is as "Harmonic" progression. I would also argue it is a more accurate term - take polyphony, for example. In analyzing the root movement of a 3-part fugue, the term Chord Progression wouldn't exactly fit, in my opinion. Rheostatik (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hey. I am a new user and I was wondering how to join this project. Could someone help me please? Thanks. LbB 03:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LittlebutBIG (talk • contribs)

Left-handers and the Scale Illusion

The scale illusion seems to affect left-handed people differently than right handed people. I hear both scales in both ears simultaneously. What are some other left-handers' experiences with this particular effect? Signedlongint (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

What scale illusion are you talking about? This is a talk page for discussing WikiProject Music Theory, not for discussing music theory in general. Powers ^T 14:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Joined

What's the deal with the name format? It's easy enough to find out user contributions etc from user pages. Any way I hope to help reactivate this project. --

clipman

23:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

clipman

02:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Intervals

Following the extended discussion surrounding the above proposal and after working on

clipman

16:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there really enough to say about the diminished fifth that isn't covered at Tritone? Powers ^T 21:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, I guess, but the attempt to merge

clipman

00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I admit I don't see the vigorous resistance, rather it seems mostly a tangential discussion on whether the diminished unison is a real interval or just a rhetorical one. =) Powers ^T 01:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

We could try the merger prop again but I'm not convinced Hyacinth will like it much... --

clipman

01:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the

CBM · talk

) 03:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is music within the scope of this project?

Please see my comment here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

12/8

The 12/8 article needs info on why it isn't confusing that although the time signature is called 12/8, it has only 4 beats. Georgia guy (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Music Theory articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Music Theory articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Reactivate?

Can this project be salvaged? It would be a good place to discuss the huge number of theory articles that would otherwise get buried in larger projects such as

clipman

17:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it certainly could be. It will always be small (in terms of participants), though. Powers ^T 21:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No smaller than many others, however,

clipman

22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Took me long enough. I'm up for reactivation. Can we archive everything from the old project and start over? Jmclark (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Project revival: December 2010

Hello potential participants,

I am hoping to revive this project, as several of the music theory articles are in want of improvement. I have not done much of the grunt work yet, and I am also not a very experienced editor. Still, I would like to help make this a constructive community/forum for us to cooperate on issues within the scope of music theory.

Please respond in this section if you are interested in being involved, and feel free to sign up here.

BassHistory (talk) 13:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if you need organizational advice! Powers ^T 02:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I can probably help some. Don't have access to research databases at the moment but I should when the semester begins again. I just updated Pythagorean hammers with books on hand. Terez27 (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll help out if i can, i'm not a native english speaker though (i'm a Swede), and my grasp of english music terms is slippery at best. I might start by updating articles on subjects from the german tradition in music theory, as these theories are quite extensively covered in swedish music theory education.--Niklas R^Talk_page 18:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

On another matter: Why isn't this project listed here?--Niklas R^Talk_page 20:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As this has been revived I've removed the 'semi-active' tags. Good luck! --Kleinzach 02:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW If you look here you'll see the inactive 'Tunings, Temperaments and Scales'. Should that be merged into this project? --Kleinzach 02:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Potential area to concentrate on

There is inconsistency among articles that might be considered members of a family (the various intervals; the various chords; etc.). I think it would be good if we good fairly quickly establish some guidelines for article structure. For example:

• Article lead should be kept simple and general, avoiding too much detail.
• Really detailed stuff in a general article should be late in the article. For instance in articles about intervals, commentary about consonance and dissonance is important and should be early, whereas commentary about Pythagorean commas (and remember that learner musicians are generally not university-level scholars of Advanced Pure Mathematics) should be left until later.

I suspect the guidelines would probably need to evolve as we gain experience tidying up the articles, but at least we have have them as an agreed basis, then we can securely challenge well-meaning edits that don't follow them. (And such editors would, of course, be welcome to take a full, active role in developing the guidelines themselves.) Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good place to start. Powers ^T 15:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

We could copy a lot from

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music), that has the added advantage of consistent style between articles in music and music theory. Maybe we should continue this discussion here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niklas R (talk • contribs

) 14:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of German Scales

The article German Scales has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Key signature names and translations covers the complete content of this poorly written, unreferenced and incomplete stub. No article links to this page. Besides, the term "German scales" is wrong, as e.g. Norwegian and some Slavic languages like Polish or Slovak have the very same system of musical notation naming.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

deleted for any of several reasons

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. FordPrefect42 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)