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

Contradiction

Why, what, where, and how does this article contradict itself and how should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article does not contradict itself. That is why I used the "contradiction inline" template instead of the general "contradiction" one. The problem is with that one sentence, claiming that Winham and Howe (amongst others) discuss the M transformations "outside twelve-tone theory". I see that you have added a (somewhat illiterate) quotation from Schuijer, stating that their discussions were "not only with regards to twelve-tone series". This helps resolve the contradiction, but the problem for me is that I have actually read the Winham and Howe articles (not the Randall, which has not been published, so I am unable to comment on it), and I fail to see anything that falls outside of twelve-tone theory. Of course, the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, so, since Schuijer says this is the case, no matter that he is wrong, the problem is resolved. I think the passage can still be improved to make clear that this is just Schuijer's opinion, however.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do it or shut up. Hyacinth (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so civil. It has in fact been done already.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then it can't still be done. Hyacinth (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of 06:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC), no, it could not be. As of 03:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC), it was yet to be done.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]