Talk:Monad (music)

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

List

Oh my, this is absolutely un-understandable!

Please state specifically what it is you don't understand. Thank you. TheScotch 02:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Just as...just as...just as...just as...just as..." - With all due respect to the writer, has s/he heard of a full stop? Or, at the very least, a change of wording every now and then? Also, those of us who haven't done in-depth study into music theory - myself included - are going to be completely lost after the introductory sentence. Can someone tell me at least what it is trying to say? I'd happily sort it myself but, frankly, I can't make head nor tail of it. Kenifh 10:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: " 'Just as...just as...just as...just as...just as...' - With all due respect to the writer, has s/he heard of a full stop?":

Since the "just as" series is obviously a list, a "full-stop" would not be appropriate here.

Re: "Or, at the very least, a change of wording every now and then?":

You seem to be recommending what Fowler derides as "elegant variation". In this case strict parallelism is critical.

Re: "Also, those of us who haven't done in-depth study into music theory - myself included - are going to be completely lost after the introductory sentence.":

Those of us with no more than a superficial interest in music theory don't need to know anything about the monad other than what the first sentence says, that the monad is simply a single note. Beyond that, the monad's significance is necessarily a "depth" significance.

Re: "Can someone tell me at least what it is 'trying' to say?":

It's trying to say what it does say. If you have a question about its content you sincerely want answered, you have to ask it. For now I can only suggest that you click on the links. I'm adding a link to "transposition" in case the term transposed is throwing you. TheScotch 23:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, don't be sarcastic. Secondly, wikipedia articles are meant to be written in such a way that a layperson can understand them, this article is not. I understand what transposing is, but the language selected for this article seems to be chosen to show one's own knowledge rather than impart it onto others. For the purpose of clarity, I feel the second paragraph should be amended to use less unnecesary technical language and wording chosen seemingly to display vocabulary, and link to other articles wherever possible, thus:

Just as a tempered tritone bisects the octave such that it has only six non-enharmonically equivalent positions (can be transposed five times, that is), just as the augmented triad trisects the octave and has four positions, just as the diminished seventh chord divides the octave in four and has three positions, just as the whole-tone scale divides the octave in six and has two positions, just as the chromatic scale divides the octave in twelve and has one position, the monad makes of the octave a single sector and has twelve positions. This seemingly trivial property of the monad is in fact an essential part of the arithmetical partitioning of the power set (set of all subsets) of the equally tempered chromatic scale.

Of course, this is just a suggestion and I would want the opinions and response of someone such as yourself who knows the subject better, but I do find that more readable. Perhaps a sentence on the logicality of the number of sections times the number of positions always coming to twelve, if you think it would suit? Kenifh 01:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I hear no objection by midnight my time (2 hours time), I'll go ahead and make the change Kenifh 21:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Firstly, don't be sarcastic.":

Obviously, I have not been sarcastic at all. Your earlier remarks, on the other hand, were fairly oozing sarcasm.

Re: "If I hear no objection by midnight my time (2 hours time), I'll go ahead and make the change .":

It is unrealistic to expect feedback within two hours at Wikipedia especially for an obscure article like this, and it is difficult for me to believe you were unaware of this no matter how much of a novice you may have been. Waiting a mere two hours is tantamount to making the changes immediately--which, as it happens, is no big deal, but let's not be disingenuous. In any case, I've had to revert some of these changes--rather belatedly, I'm afraid (I didn't notice them until just now). The terms bisects and concomitant are common English words, known to every literate person, whether a musician or not, and the meanings of trisects and so on, can easily be inferred from bisects, which comes first in the article. Moreover, the property in question is not "part" of the petitioning. Concomitant shows a logical relation. That doesn't mean some synonym or other won't do in its stead, but part is not a synonym. "Divides into two parts" would be serviceable as a replacement for bisects--although unnecessarily verbose--were it not that bisects sets up sector (which you've left intact). I've retained your links--and added more. TheScotch (talk) 07:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TheScotch dispute

This dispute concerns User:TheScotch's apparently preferred version of this article. I have re-reverted his reversion in the meantime.

TheScotch, the existing comments on this talk page note that your version is unreadable. While articles should not stay away from appropriate technical detail on their subjects, some editors, myself included, may see your writing as deliberate advocacy of pompousness and esotericism. I would also like to add that I do not see how the long second paragraph adds anything relevant at all to the topic. More specifically:

What do the various chords, laid out in a meticulously repetitive proselist, have to do with a monad?
Your revision mentions the power set. What does set theory have to do with pitches and scales?
"Seemingly trivial" and "essential" should not belong in a neutral, factual article if these viewpoints cannot be justified.

Suggested resolutions:

Answer the above questions to determine how your added content is relevant, and how it should be properly integrated into the article text.
Add appropriate sources and citations to any outstanding claims you've added; they are non-trivial enough to warrant this.
Behave figuratively as human male genitalia until one of us is expressly castrated and the other wins the sacred right to apply his preferred changes. (Optional)

~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 13:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]