Talk:Musical note
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Musical note article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Musical articles are too complicated[edit]
These musical articles are written in too complicated manner. Wikipedia is supposed to be method of learning for lay people.
While the sentences may be very precise, without examples and simple explanatory text, these articles are useless and off-putting for many users. I've gone through several articles: notes, harmonics, pure tone, consonance and dissonance, and frankly didn't learn much.
Take my comments to heart, and simplify these articles. PeterB1517 (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- I completely agree. Your comment is absolutely correct. Most WP articles on music theory leave me even more confused than when I started reading. Unfortunately, a bunch of musical nerds who would find it challenging to describe a swift kick in the nuts have apparently taken charge of all such WP articles: and the utterly incomprehensible and almost reference-free result is plain for all to see. Or not. Half-time score: WP editors 1, Music 0. I hereby challenge every single statement in this article lacking a reliable source - that's about 98% of the entire content (see WP:RS) - and intend to remove all un-reffed statements within a fortnight. MinorProphet (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, just like the article on Gravity just says "Gravity is what makes things fall down." In every subject, there's a superficial way to understand it, suitable for beginners, and a more detailed way that delves into the details. It's silly to pretend there's some easy way to balance that. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- I find Wikipedia articles on music to be a wonderful resource for learning things that are quite hard to find systematically presented elsewhere. So: we shouldn't get rid of anything! Merel getting rid of stuff doesn't make things easier to understand. However, we should add more introductory stuff at the beginning of articles, for beginners. John Baez (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, music theory articles (and frankly, a lot of music theory literature) is simply not well-written in the way that other academic genres try to be. I think it has something to do with the elitist dialectic both continued by and levied against historical music practice, classical music, etc. There's either an attempt to throw everything out while smirking, to a degree of in-curiosity that would make most people guffaw if it were about, say, history, or even literary criticism. Of course, it got to this point for a reason, and the fault ends up lying at the feet of the sophisticated whom whence bore the cultured theoreticians.
The article should be exactly as complex as its topic needs to be for a general audience, WP:ONEDOWN is very good advice, imo. Remsense留 22:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, music theory articles (and frankly, a lot of music theory literature) is simply not well-written in the way that other academic genres try to be. I think it has something to do with the elitist dialectic both continued by and levied against historical music practice, classical music, etc. There's either an attempt to throw everything out while smirking, to a degree of in-curiosity that would make most people guffaw if it were about, say, history, or even literary criticism. Of course, it got to this point for a reason, and the fault ends up lying at the feet of the sophisticated whom whence bore the cultured theoreticians.
- Unfortunately there is a lot that goes into the abstract concept of a "musical note" that this article needs to discuss. Simplified Wikipedia is better suited for dumbing down subjects...see https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_note and if that is not sufficiently simple then please edit that. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Names of notes in various languages[edit]
I'm not sure how common it is, but in a score for the Gliere Harp Concerto, link below, there are enharmonic names for harp pedaling using the German system such as 'Fes' pg 34, 'His" pg 63, 'Eis' pg 74 that do not appear in the article table.
I'll leave it to someone else to decide if these should be added to the table.
https://petruccimusiclibrary.ca/files/imglnks/caimg/7/74/IMSLP863829-PMLP1198871-Gliere_Harp_Concerto.pdf Burchseymour (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Names of the notes in full[edit]
The names of the notes in full is "ay", "bee", "cee", "dee", "e", "ef" and "gee".
Sharps: "Aysharp", "beesharp", "ceesharp", "deesharp", "esharp", "efsharp" and "geesharp".
Flats: "Ayflat", "beeflat", "ceeflat", "deeflat", "eflat", "efflat" and "geeflat".
Doublesharps: "Aydoublesharp", "ceedoublesharp", "deedoublesharp", "efdoublesharp" and "geedoublesharp".
Doubleflats: "Aydoubleflat", "beedoubleflat", "deedoubleflat", "edoubleflat" and "geedoubleflat".
189.50.182.128 (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Origin of sharp (♯) and flat (♭) symbols[edit]
Although the description of the note-letter H seems credible, the origins of sharp and flat seem wrong.
Like the writer who inserted the text now marked "citation needed", I recall from long-ago college music lessons that
- The ♯ symbol arose from German handwriting (modern "sch") of old-style letters "ſch" ≈ "#" as a scrawled abbreviation for scharf (sharp).
- The ♭ symbol is a minute handwritten letter "b", and is an abbreviation for the German word blatt – a now-unused word for flat, or "plain and unappealing".
But alas, I have no source at hand to back that claim up.
166.199.8.37 (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)