Talk:Helmholtz pitch notation

A fact from Helmholtz pitch notation appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 August 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the pitch notation developed by Hermann von Helmholtz for his work on acoustics and is one of two main systems for describing musical pitch?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/August.

Wikipedia

Music theory Low‑importance

	Music portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Another possible variation

Our lute article appears to use C' to mean what Helmholtz notation calls C_I, and presumably would use C ' ' to mean C_II and so on.

This has some advantages and I can't see any major problems with it, we do need to use blanks or nowiki tags or something to avoid having MediaWiki go into italics at the repeated prime but that's acceptable IMO and that's about all. So is it WP:OR to propose a Wikipedia variation of this notation, along those lines? It would also allow us to clean up the question of whether ' is really an acceptable prime symbol and _I an acceptable sub-prime in this context. Andrewa (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting - I think the variation will need an external source to be properly considered; it may be that actually Lute#Tuning conventions needs cleaning up to match, as it seems unreferenced).

Regarding the prime, I find it easier to use the html tags ′ (′) and (use of the apostrophe/related characters is definitely wrong. I seem from this article I used the symbol ˌ or ˌˌ for the sub-prime - not sure how valid that is. (It is in under IPA in the symbol drop down box below the edit window).—MDCollins (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Firefox, (″) shows as a simple (as opposed to smart 66 and 99 style) double-quote, is this what you want? I think that's just asking for trouble; If what we want is the same symbol repeated, then that's what we should use logically too.

I'm trying to clear quite a lot of this up right now, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Stringed instrument tunings). Contributions and/or comments most welcome, see particularly Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Stringed instrument tunings)#Helmholtz pitch notation. Andrewa (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I was using the prime and Prime (double prime) symbols as they are labelled, not as they actually displayed. I did wonder why they didn't really appear as a true prime, but there didn't seem to be any way around that. I see your point about using one symbol twice, but if the double prime did appear correctly, it cuts down on the editing characters. Incidentally, I was looking at WP:Units and there the prime does display, by using {{xt|prime}}, although it does format it in green!! If you can find a way for the logical ′ to display a true prime rather than what passes for an apostophe, that would be great.—MDCollins (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question asked at Talk:Prime (symbol)#Displaying the Prime correctly in web browsers.—MDCollins (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see what I have added at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music#Helmholtz pitch notation. While it would probably be WP:OR to decide the proper way to render HPN into type in general, I see no problem in making an effort to standardize how it is used on Wikipedia through the use of the WP:MOS.--Theodore Kloba (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The origin of the Helmholtz system

The article fails to explain how the Helmholtz system differs from earlier notation systems. As far as I can see, the only two differences between Helmholtz' notation and the notation used by Johan Daniel Berlin as early as 1744 (which I believe he got from Mattheson - gotta check that) is that Helmholtz added notation for the octaves below the great octave and that he used vertical rather than horizontal strokes for the higher octaves. Frank Nordberg (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In some sources, for example on Dolmetzsch's web page "Music theory online" ([1]), it is actually stated that the notation was developed by Helmholtz. However, this does not seem to be quite true, and Helmholtz himself did not claim it his own, except for the lowest octaves. He used this notation in his book Die Lehre von den Tonempfindungen als physiologische Grundlage für die Theorie der Musik, which is now available online in PDF format ([2]), but there on page 28 he wrote:

Die deutschen Musiker bezeichnen die Töne der höheren Octaven durch Strichelung, wie folgt.

(English translation: "German musicians use a notation with for tunes in higher octaves, as follows"), thus implying that at least in Germany, the notation was already in use before Helmholtz. On the other hand, on the following page, it is stated:

Unter diese folgt die 16füssige oder Contra-Octave, die tiefste des Claviers un der meisten Orgeln, deren Töne wir mit C_I, D_I... bezeichnen wollen. Endlich wird auf grossen Orgeln auch wohl noch eine 32füssige tiefere Octave C_II bis H_II ausgeführt, deren Klänge aber kaum noch der Charakter eines musikalischen Tones haben."

(translation: "Below these, there are the 16-foot or contra octave, the lowest one in pianos and in most organs, for the tunes of which we will use the notation C_I, D_I... At last, in great organs, even a 32-foot octave (from C_II to B_II) has been added, the sounds of which, however, hardly have the nature of musical tunes." So it seems that only the notation for those lowest octaves was Helmholtz' own. -KLS (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fix Invisible Illustration

Someone needs to fix the illustration at the top of the article, which appears to be black or dark blue on black, and which is therefore nearly invisible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does any one know this kind of octave designation?

What do you make of the octave designation used in GNU Solfege. If you go to the "Preferences" page of that program and choose "User" (the second choice in the version I've looked at which is version 3.20.8) you get a system that resembles the Helmholtz pitch notation but is not quite it. In the system they use octaves go, from lowest to highest, like this: c,,,, - c,,, - c,, - c, - c - c' - c'' - c''' - c'''' - c''''' - c'''''' (eleven octaves in all) but as you can see it is not the Helmholtz system as the Helmholtz system uses lower and upper case letters whereas this one only uses lowercase letters. Has anyone ever seen this system and knows what it means? Is it worth adding information about it to WP? Contact Basemetal here 18:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Basemetal 14:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Basemetal 15:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

How are these things pronounced? When one sees c''' or c'' or c' or c or C, how does one read that aloud? "cee-triple-prime"? "cee-prime-prime-prime"? Or perhaps "cee third". "cee second". "c prime", "c", "big C"? -- Evertype·✆ 18:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Origin All Wrong

This is all wrong. This system is not Helmholtz at all. It was in use long before him. If someone wanted for reason to call it helmholtz anyway, we still cannot say it was his invention. 109.60.103.218 (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, this was not invented by Helmholtz

I have seen sources from before his birth using this system on imslp.org. He may have modified it but there was no other system of naming octaves except the useless "two octaves and a third above middle C". I doubt it would have spread so widely through Europe just because some scientist put it in a book.I wish I had noted the source when I saw it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.198.217 (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That Helmholtz did not invent this notation seems to me more or less clearly said in the article. It could have been said more explicitly, however, and I modified the article accordingly. There remain troublesome statements taken from an article by Brian Blood on Dolmetsch online, about "English multiple C notation" and a "German method" that should be better documented. I'll see whether I can find sources. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]