Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory/Archive 4

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.

I propose that

I think that you would propose consistently to rename the articles about

regular tunings

to

• "
  regular tunings
  (guitar)"
• "
  major thirds
  (guitar tuning)"
• "
  all fourths
  (guitar tuning)"
• "augmented fourths (guitar tuning))"
• "
  all fifths
  (guitar tuning)"

An advantage of the consistent renamings would be to remove the hyphenation from the (standard-written-English– and MOS–-compliant) titles "major-thirds tuning", ..., and "all-fifths tuning".

Gilderien is correct that all-fifths is has the greatest potential for clashing with a future article on all-fifths tunings for other instruments.

However, all-fourths tuning is used for bass guitar. Major-thirds tunings and related tunings are used for Russian guitar and other East-European instruments (often with rounding of the sharp/flat to a "natural" note).

Gilderien and others—do you know of reliable sources on all-fifths tuning for instruments besides the guitar? I have been frustrated on the dearth of academic sources for the regular guitar-tunings, besides Sethares's.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

From my own experience, I know that

Double Bass is tuned in perfect fourths. I'll have a look for some sources.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds

08:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That the violin family instruments are most usually (see scordatura) tuned in all fifths, and the double bass in all fourths, is an uncontroversial fact. Finding a source for that is a low priority, IMO. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Just plan Bill,

Gilderien proposed renaming an article to allow space for an article all-fifths tuning for other instruments. Does anybody think that somebody will write an article on the topic of all-fifths tuning in general?

If nobody thinks that such an article will appear, there is little reason to rename the guitar article(s). If there are no reliable sources discussing all-fifths tunings in general, then no such article can appear. Thus, my question about reliable sources was to understand whether anybody could write such an article.

Perhaps Wikipedia's mentioning that violins, etc., are usually tuned in fifths in the violin, etc. articles and the scordatura article suffice---and there is no need to rename the guitar-tuning article? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The article's first sentence establishes context with "Among guitar tunings, all-fifths tuning refers to the set of tunings..." If something of significance ever needs to be written about all-fifths tuning of other instruments, I believe it may be incorporated into this article, perhaps including an adjustment to the stated context. As always, I try to stay open to news which might change my view, but I'm pretty confident that this is a bridge which may be crossed if we ever come to it, and that the present situation is not broken enough to need fixing.

By the way, the scale length of most guitars is closer to that of a cello, which has a bearing on fingering. An octave mandolin recently came into my life, and I'm finding that cello-esque fingerings are more convenient for it than are violin or mandolin fingerings, at least as far as melodic playing goes. Chords are a different beast entirely. This relates to the reason a bass is in all fourths, possibly so scale runs may be played across the strings without shifting the left hand up or down the neck. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

To clarify: Do you oppose the name change(s) for now ("if not broke, then don't fix it")?

(I agree that the scale length is important. I added Fripp's scale length with his electronic strings to the new standard tuning article. It is unfortunate that most string-recommendations don't mention e.g. 25.25 or 25.5 inches.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I oppose the move, but it is mild opposition. All fifths tuning works perfectly well as a name, as far as I can see. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Summary: So far, I think that consensus is to uphold the status quo---no name-changes. However, if anybody writes an article on general all-fifths tuning or orchestral stringed-instruments all-fifths tuning (or declares a serious intention to begin writing such an article, imho), then a name change would make sense (and anybody could implement it). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll get round to it at some point, but won't move the article until then.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 15:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox: Regular guitar tunings

The automatic peer-reviewer suggested that articles have infoboxes, so I created the following box, which summarizes the summary table in

I updated the box, because I disliked the unstructured-programming style of the old template. The new template looks better and should be easier to understand and maintain. 20:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Ralph Patt is now a good article. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments are welcome. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have a separate page for every single diatonic scale? Are they each significant enough to warrant their own page? I think they could easily be merged into Diatonic scale without any loss. Every scale page amounts to "this is its key signature, this is its relative minor, these are famous compositions that use it, etc"... which is all very trivial and not encyclopedia material. Mbza (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If the page were just the basics, I might agree more strongly wtih you. But the few that I saw really try to flesh out the characteristics of the particular key. More significantly, any of them could use expansion in such as way as to really make each scale page distinctive and unique. So my feeling is that each one should be enhanced rather than merged. -- kosboot (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This all seams very airy fairy and difficult to decipher.

Please before you all turn into loose cannons read the book called Intervals, Scales and Temperaments and then you'll have more than half a clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.36.245 (talk) 09:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the formatting of this comment. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)20:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with the idea of the scale pages being non-encyclopedic at the moment. It's something that needs to be worked on. In a way though, I think it is something better fit for a more musicology based project (finding sources that describe characteristics of keys) than a music theory one. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 15:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed solfege from note articles for a reason that's easy to understand. In C major, those solfege names are right; otherwise they are wrong. You know the scale do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do. In C major, C is do, but in G major, C is fa, not do. Mentioning do in the C (musical note) article implies that C is do even if not in C major. Any comments?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

For people (like myself) who believe in fixed do, what you did would seem superficially logical. But many people use movable do in which do is assigned to whatever note is the tonic. Since there is no resolution in the music theory world as to which is better, I would think Wikipedia would also defer on the question, and include moveable do, otherwise people will edit all those syllables back into the article. Even if we tried to decide it on consensus, I doubt that a consensus would be reached. -- kosboot (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I just went and reverted Georgia guy's edits. I know you acted in good faith, but there are still English speakers who use fixed-do, for example, if their musical training or early education happened in Latin America. Not sure how best to accommodate your views here... I'm listening, __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with solfege before removing more. Hyacinth (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I know solfege well. I know the sequence (we all know the song Do-Re-Mi.) I know that each syllable corresponds to a note in the diatonic scale. Do is the tonic; re is the supertonic; mi is the mediant; and so on. It's important to know the difference between C major and other keys and that solfege melodies can be in either key. Look at the following tune written in solfege:

• Do-do-so-so-la-la-so
• Fa-fa-mi-mi-re-re-do
• So-so-fa-fa-mi-mi-re
• So-so-fa-fa-mi-mi-re
• Do-do-so-so-la-la-so
• Fa-fa-mi-mi-re-re-do

This tune is sometimes written in C major; sometimes it's in a different key. Do the solfege syllables change?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Solfège#Fixed do solfège. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Beginning violin students often learn that delightful bit of Mozart in the key of A; that way it stays on the two strings which are easiest to reach. In movable-Do, the syllables do not change. In fixed-Do, they will be different:

• La-la-mi-mi-fi-fi-mi ...

and so onwards, with La being the tonic. In another example, I am used to seeing violin strings packaged for the international market, with labelling such as "G IV Sol" or "D III Re" (where the numeral shows the string's position, numbered from high to low.) __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose two options, either should be implemented. Either the article explicitly states the solfege is in fixed do or all such articles should remove the solfege. Fixed do is definitely not the default. I'd say it's around 50/50 people learning fixed do vs. movable do. Right now, the fixed do is what is in the article, but it may be important to establish differences in enharmonicism. For instance, E is mi, Fb is fa - but both are the same note enharmonically. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 03:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless the article has to do with solfege, I don't see any reason why solfege syllables are used in an article to specify notes. They are used more extensively in non-English languages (Italian, especially), but I think most English-speaking people will understand letter names quite well. -- kosboot (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. But then again, I think there's a lot of extraneous information all over Wikipedia...so I'm not sure it'll ever be taken away ;-) — Devin.chaloux (chat) 19:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

F♭ could be fo, fe, or even mi, depending on who you ask. Double sharp (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The articles on the white-key notes link to fixed-do. What one person may call extraneous, another may call enrichment. Familiarity with fixed-do solfege has helped me understand what an English-speaking musician was saying, when that person had been to school in a Spanish-speaking country. __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have expanded and revised

• more discussion of
  regular tunings (and open tunings), using illustrations I uploaded for major thirds tuning
  .
• brief introduction to guitar chords now independent of the tuning (while also emphasizing the emphasis on standard tuning). I mentioned the Roman numeral analysis discussed by two sources as explaining the popularity of the CAGED major-chords in popular music.
• Discussion of repeated notes (for increased volume) and inversions and alternative voicings as important for guitar. These observations seem trivial, but I cannot find references.

It's probable that I made mistakes, and so outside-eyes would be appreciated. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Does the image File:Tonnetz.jpg display as a blank white rectangle for anyone else? On the file page I can see it, but whenever it is thumbnailed it doesn't display. Any idea(s) why? Hyacinth (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a clue, but it's a blank black rectangle for me (including the thumbnail shown on the file page). Weird. Rivertorch (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The thumbnail on this page is blank for me; but clicking on it shows the original image which is visible to me. -- kosboot (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I note that when I removed the thumb element, it displays properly; when I try other sizes (250px, 300px) it still displays as a blank area Maybe it would be wise to upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and then link to it from there instead of WP. -- kosboot (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Updated to PNG version. Seemed to be an issue with the compression used in the file. gringer (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There are tons of short articles that should be merged (or one split into two other preexisting articles, etc.), and there are also many parallel classifications, redundant articles, and almost-duplicates. I've just done so with

• Nondominant seventh chord → Seventh chord
• Mu chord → Added tone chord or Ninth chord
• Blind octave and Close and open harmony → Voicing (music)
• Tertian → Chord (music)
• Blues scale → Jazz scale
• Major scale and minor scale → Major and minor
• Power chord and Open chord → Guitar chord
• Cadence (music)
• Subdominant parallel → Supertonic
  (and then see here below)
• The 8 articles about tonal function (
  Diatonic function

• Other articles to merge with something else: Relative key, Parallel key...
• Groups of articles in which we should discuss what is their relationship:

• Added tone chord and Extended chord
• Cadence (music)

Since I can't find a centralized list with all the chords and related concepts (and many articles are not listed in this WikiProject), I think we'll have to make some digging. Maybe we should create a "scheme" as some kind of guideline. Thanks!!--Fauban 11:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Please wait at least a week (for discussion here) before merging any more chord articles, and be sure to discuss this with Hyacinth (who wrote a lot of e.g., the nondominant seventh chord).

Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

OK! Anyway, I'll still add more sugestions on the list above. One last thing: by reducing the number of articles (reasonably), maintenance and general cleanup in the WikiProject will be easier.--Fauban 11:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Two objections regarding guitar chords. (1) The Power chord deserves its own article, per due weight. Its discussion in guitar chord uses theory and so has a brief treatment; most readers would prefer a discussion with fewer prerequisites. (2) Open chord is also of concern for other string instruments, and so I don't think it should be merged. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but still then, we have Open chord and Open string.--Fauban 12:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think there should be a clear division between techniques (like Open chord) and real harmonic devices. About the "guideline" thing, why don't we make the harmony article the center of all the harmonic devices (chords, tonality, function) and we structure everything around the contents we put in that article? However, maybe we shoud subdivide it into a Western tonal harmony article.--Fauban 14:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

A textbook on tonal harmony might have your suggested organization. However, an encyclopedia has greater overlap among its articles, to ensure accessibility to the public. (Presumably, somebody who has had a course on the fundamentals of music does not need an explanation of what a chord or triad is.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you mean (

Perhaps you could try to assemble your list in your user-space, and when it is settled for yourself, you could ask for feedback from a few editors. When you all have consensus, maybe you could bring it to the project? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

What would be the reasons for merging some of the articles listed above (Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merger)?
What about Category:Harmony, Category:Chords, and List of chords? Hyacinth (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

About the merging,

WP:MERGE already expalins it. For example: Tertian, Blind octave and Subdominant parallel because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and they're unlikely to be expanded a lot; Nondominant seventh chord and Mu chord because of overlapping; and Dominant, Mediant... → because of context (and also because they won't be expanded). I think those and many others are clear candidates, and I'm sure I'll find more. Cheers! (P.S. Well, it turns out I'll be very busy for a couple of days)--Fauban

19:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:MERGE doesn't already explain it. We're talking about real specific instances. That's why I asked you, and not a page that can't talk or write. WP:MERGE also already explains that the way to propose a merger is to start a local discussion.

I don't think all your examples are clear. For example, Tertian isn't even marked as a stub. Regarding dominant, etc., "Merging should be avoided if:" "The resulting article is too long or 'clunky'". Hyacinth (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Maybe I was too naive. I suggested the mergings here (instead of using the procedure exposed in Wikipedia:Merging) because I thought it would be easier and quicker. Let's be more specific, at leaast with some of my suggestions:

• Subdominant parallel: It's just a synonym of Supertonic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It will never be expanded. It's just an alternative name created by Hugo Riemann
  .

It's wonderful that you want to do so much work. :)

However, I think your claim is wrong. It is almost impossible to bring core articles to Featured-Article status.

Even good-article status is extremely difficult because of the "comprehensive" requirement. Have you any experience with writing or reviewing Good Articles? You might look at Ralph Patt (the jazz guitarist who invented major thirds tuning) to see the amount of work needed for GA status of a narrow topic. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, I'm familiar with writing and reviewing Good Articles (I've written 50% of the current

I'm much in favor of merging all these individual articles into one big article, for it will provide better context for how they relate to one another. Redirects will solve the problem of people looking for individual chords. If one of merged chord articles them becomes excessive (e.g. diminished seventh chord), then it can be forked with a summary in the main article. -- kosboot (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point: remember that we wouldn't be deleting the small articles, just putting a redirect, so if somebody searched for "dominant", he'd still find the definition within the big article.--Fauban 11:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I know I am a little late to the party, but I was in favor of expanding all of the diatonic function articles (tonic, supertonic, mediant...etc) so they actually made sense as their own articles. Unfortunately, User:Hyacinth thought otherwise. They could be expanded to not only talk about diatonic function, but to talk about the triads that are built on those scale degrees and their resolutions, their context in a broader harmonic function, and so forth. These actually could be not only lengthy articles, but extremely useful. My concern is that an article on diatonic function would get too long if it actually went into the depth it should.

I do agree that the Riemannian functions should be merged since it is just a classification system and one that is rarely taught to the larger population of English speakers (except in more advanced degrees). Proper redirects would solve any issue with finding the articles. A lot of what is proposed here is good. Condensing smaller stubs into larger articles make a lot of sense for the most part. I think a few others could be added to the list (i.e. some of the sequence topics like

Circle progression --> Sequence (music)) — Devin.chaloux (chat

) 13:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How and where was I against lengthier articles and articles which make sense? Hyacinth (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You were against them when I attempted to combine the articles listed above as well as the ones being discussed on diatonic function. You didn't think they made sense so you unilaterally objected and thus it was never done. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 21:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, if the

I actually think this is a smart way to go about this as many other fields in Wikipedia parse there articles in such a fashion if they become too long. As far as I'm concerned, the organization of many of these pages are not good and do need to be fixed. I will support any changes along these lines. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 21:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we merge all articles into Music? Hyacinth (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

~ The typical snarky response. This is why these articles are not getting improved Hyacinth. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 21:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding the possible deletion the above category. Perhaps some of you may wish to weigh in? Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

is an article linked to this project. I am seriously suggesting that it be deleted, and being an inclusionist, that is not a place I often go. Check it out. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Go to Talk:Degree (music) and look at the section talking about how the subdominant was named. Anything anyone would like to add to the discussion?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. There's a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Unqualified intervals about linkng to interval names (say thirds) when you don't want the over-precision of specifying whether they are major or minor etc. I reckon you folks might be abke to help. --Stfg (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Anybody interested in helping to improve mensural notation? I'm in the process of rewriting and expanding it, and I think it could be taken to FA some time. Ideas, review, copyediting and other contributions will be welcome. Cheers, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion occuring here regarding which music articles should be deemed

The new article overtones tuning may interest music-theorists.

I nominated it for DYK:

• Did you know ... that, on Bad Company's "Can't Get Enough", the ringing guitar uses an open tuning constructed from C's overtones (pictured)?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wisconsin Professor William Sethares could use some more editing. Good-faith editors have used primary sources for the article, and a bit of effort should be able to find secondary sources. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Being pretty acquainted with the field, I don't think he has the name recognition that would warrant immediate attention to that article. There are many more pages in dire need of attention before this one. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 04:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for you consideration. A professor at Wisconsin has obviously some engineering mojo working, and Sethares seems to be an interesting musical intellect and personality. His work was the main source for the next topic of discussion, regular tunings for guitar. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm the primary author of Sethares' Wikipedia article. What changes would you like to see, other than those discussed on its Talk page -- and why? JimPlamondon (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The last time I checked it was based primarily on sources connected closely with the author. Part of it had a promotional feel. It should be possible to build an article using e.g. reviews of his books, etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Reads more like a promotional article for his theories than a biography. -- kosboot (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a new article:

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

Hi WikiProject Music theory. I noticed this recent edit to

The edit is correct. I don't understand why you would want

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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:

•

Chromatic" redirect here, but not Chromaticism

which is a separate article.

•

Diatonic function

, etc.

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

•

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)

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)

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 modulation
  " [but neither "C." nor "E. modulation"].
• There is a separate Chromaticism article dealing with similar topics.
• Three articles of similar content deal with
  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...
• Diatonic modulation redirects to "Diatonic and chromatic", although "Modulation
  " includes section about 'Common tone modulation' and 'Common chord modulation' that may concern D. modulation.
• 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 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

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)

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)

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)

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

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 • contribs) 12:16, 16 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)

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)

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♭ 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). 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. 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)

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)

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)