Talk:Articulation (music)

Sforzando

This may be a matter of individual interpretation, but I've always been taught that the 2 notations in the image one from the right and two from the right would be a marcato accent, regular accent. A sforzando note would be notated sFz --Elmorell 19:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is correct. Sibelius lables the ^ as a Marcato, the > as just a plain accent. --86.142.254.182 11:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tie

It is difficult for me to see how a tie can be considered articulation. It merely governs how long a single note is to be held. Dysprosia 06:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

no 71.93.240.14 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Merge

These two articles Articulation_(music) and Accent_(music) should be merged in my opinion.

Meekohi 06:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Speaking as a musician myself, it has always been my understanding that articulation encompasses a broad range of musical functions, some of which can affect several consecutive notes, while the term “accent” refers to a rather limited group of markings placed on a single note. An accent is a type of articulation. Galanskov 13:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to clarrify. Both terms are highly notable within music theory, and both deserve a complete article. Galanskov 05:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think they should not be merged, as, in addition to what Galanskov said, metric accents, i.e., bringing out the metric structure, do not seem to have anything to do with articulation, i.e., bringing out the melodic line. One can probably write quite a bit on both features. So they deserve separate articles. Haberg 14:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Details!

I'm the one who made the "Detail!" on Dynamics. Again, I say the same cry for info on Articulation. Tips, background, and more, all excepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.132.14 (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2006

ask joshua dixon because he knows everything bout articulation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.18.17 (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

hey joshua 71.93.240.14 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Articulation (music). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714065232/http://www.mednetconnection.com/18051/18020.html to http://www.mednetconnection.com/18051/18020.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Purpose and interpretation

I have occasionally done editing here on Wikipedia for maybe 10 years. mostly corrections or elaborations. But sometimes editions as well. My experience have occasionally done editing here on Wikipedia for maybe 10 years. Mostly corrections or elaborations. But sometimes additions as well. My experience adding things has sometimes been difficult because other editors sometimes push the issue of sourcing things to the point of sourcing every little thing. Generally it's a good thing and I agree readers should be able to see where written here comes from. Sometimes it's a bad thing too because experienced editors can gang up on somebody quoting a gazillion different wikipedia guidelines and seemingly have nothing else to do than to sit on their computers and monitor every page they've ever contributed to. Then I come across this article. the whole section about purpose and interpretation is basically an opinion piece. There's a couple of sources but they only cover little bits. Much of what is written in there wrong to the point of being foolish. things like the middle phrase being louder then the beginning or the ending is poppycock. if the composer for the middle to be louder than the beginning end it would be properly marked. Post-standard says a phrase that is unmarked louder in the middle then it is at the beginning or the ending. there is no way to divine the composer's intent. If you want to know what the intent was oh, just play it the way it's notated. "some voices will naturally be played louder than others, for instance to emphasis the melody and the bass line, even if a whole passage is marked at one dynamic level." That is totally wrong. If you do that you are taking creative license and that is a different issue that dynamics. "Some instruments are naturally louder than others". That is true but if the composer has the tuba and the guitar marked as piano the performers have to work out how to make them piano, not let the tuba overwhelm the guitar when it is obvously not the composers intent. To not do that would be bad musicianship or at least lazy. "A forte passage is not usually "the same as a piano passage but louder". Rather, a musician will often use a different approach to other aspects of expression like timbre or articulation to further illustrate the differences. Again that is wrong. That is the the muscian creating their own version of the composition while ignoring the notation. Not that it's wrong to do but it does not belong in a discussion about notation. The interpretation would need new notation for anyone else to play it that way. Again, the composer is trying to show their intent through the notation. For instance. People who know and love classical piano can be easily offended if a pianist doesn't honor the notations. The hard part fo the pianist is to honor the work and still impart style that makes them stand out. When I hear someone play rachmaninoff piano concerto number 2 in C minor I want them to be able to look at the music and reach into the mind composer and inhabit them so perfectly that they can convey the emotions the composer felt when they wrote it down. The pianist can impart style to convey the feelings and emotions while at the same time sticking to what's on the page. The composer conveyed their feelings through the dynamic notations. notation carries forward true sections until the notation is changed.if they wanted the to be louder in the middle than it was at the beginning and end you would have notated that way. It's a fine line. this whole section is not sourced properly and to me is obviously nothing more than someone's personal opinion the topic. I don't come to wikipedia to read an editor's personal opinion. It is original research. My instinct would be to delete the sections but I think are wrong and are not sourced but it wouldn't leave much behind. I haven't got time to dig through sources on dynamics to write something that can be sourced. At least not now. So does anybody have any ideas about how to properly portray Purpose and interpretation of musical dynamics. BTW to those that use the phrase, "close enough for Jazz" I would say take a look at a big banc chart. the notation language is different but it's even more specific than classical. Places where you improvise are notated as such. the notation of rhythms and accents in jazz is very precise. Jackhammer111 (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)