Jump to content

Talk:Musical notation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Cantillation

There should be a mention of cantillation somewhere in this article or at least a link, because that is effectively a form of musical notation. Not sure where it should be mentioned though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.91.247 (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Symbol Request

Could someone upload Lilypond PNGs to support the articles Da capo, Dal Segno, Coda, and Fermata please? That would be most appreciated. -Lommer | talk 07:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stave vs. Staff

Isn't the correct English term stave?)

It appears that staff and stave are usually the same and that staff is more common. --rmhermen

Staves is the plural of staff. Webster says that stave can also mean staff (singular), but I think we should stick with staff for singular. -- Merphant

I believe that stave is more common in British usage, while staff is used in the U.S. UninvitedCompany

In the same light, nobody in the U.S. will understand a word you're saying if you go on about crochets and quavers and so forth. The terms here are whole/half/quarter/eigth/sixteenth (etc) note. UninvitedCompany

The American Heritage Dictionary, first edition, does not allow "stave" in the musical sense as singular AT ALL. I think we should preserve the distinction. Despite the confused British usage (which may actually be a MINORITY British usage or a relatively new British usage), "staff/staves" is properly like "leaf/leaves", "wife/wives", "knife/knives", and so on.

Not minority usage at all in my experience. Until reading this article, I'd never heard of the use of "staff" like this, despite signing in a church choir for 5 years and taking a Music GCSE. --Celestianpower háblame 16:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm Canadian, eh? (Sort of in-between).We ALWAYS use staff in the singular, but NOW AND THEN you hear the plural as STAVES. (But Stave as a singular makes as much sense as a hemidemisemiquaver, or "knive", or "wive". (And wasn't it a British newscaster who said, "Canada ARE doing well in the Olympics"?) By the way, wasn't it the British who decided there would be 5280 feet to a mile, rather than 1,000 meters to a kiometer? Let's get real, and take the easiest route! For musical terms, most people prefer American. For measurements, the whole world prefers metric...and even the USA is starting to see why! STAFF = Singular; STAVES = Plural. Savez-vous bien? "Middle Up" guys! That's what we Canadians are here to tell you! LET'S GET TOGETHER!!! Prof.rick 11:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have strong feelings on this issue. My opinion is as follows: either "staff" or "stave", with respective plurals "staffs" and "staves". In particular, "staves" is NOT the plural of "staff"! The alleged analogy with leaf/leaves etc. does not hold, because in those cases, there is no vowel change. (To make the analogy work, you would have to pronounce "staves" like "stavs". But I don't think anybody does this.) "Staff" and "staffs" are indeed both acceptable words; look it up if you doubt. So long as this option is available, "staves" should be restrticted to being the plural of "stave". In short: take your pick, but please be consistent! Komponisto 04:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The vowel change is irrelevant. More significant is that in all the cases cited here the singular form ends with an f. The f is changed to v in the plural form simply because staffs, wifes, lifes, knifes, and leafs are difficult to pronounce. We similarly change the article a to an before a word beginning with a vowel to make the construction easier to pronounce, and we used to go further and change the form of the first person possessive pronoun accordingly. This is why "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" goes, "Mine eyes have seen the glory...," rather than, "My eyes have seen the glory...." If you yourself have no trouble pronouncing staffs, you have my permission to speak it, just as long as you refrain from admonishing others to use it and don't use it in print or in wikipedia. Stave is more objectionable than staffs because stave is a back formation. TheScotch 05:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I find your suggestion that we "look it up" fairly annoying, considering that I made it clear quite some time ago that I had looked it up. I explained specifically that I'd looked it up in the American Heritage Dictionary, first edition, which says that the plural of staff in the musical sense is staves and also, as I pointed out, does not allow "stave" in the musical sense as singular at all. You can't reasonably maintain that you neglected to read this comment of mine because you directly allude to my remarks in what you refer to as the "alleged analogy with leaf/leaves etc".

Merphant before me made it clear that he'd looked it up in what he calls "Webster" (by which he may mean some edition of some Merriam-Webster dictionary, although any company can legally call its dictionaries Webster's and many disparate companies do), and my remarks below his clearly demonstrate that dictionaries disagree. In this case, there are two relevant disagreements. The one between British and American usage we have discussed, the other, between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" intentions, we have not. The American Heritage originally sought to provide an alternative to the "anything goes" (I'm quoting E. B. White in Points of My Compass here) philosophy of the Merriam-Webster Third International. I contend that it is disingenuous for a dictionary to purport to be purely "descriptive" (as that which you are thinking of and failing to cite by name and edition presumably purports to be): People use dictionaries "prescriptively" and editors know that. TheScotch 08:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither, by the way, should you let the circumstance that staff is spelled with two f’s throw you. It's spelled with two f’s because its single vowel is short. Notice that all the other examples cited here have long vowels in their singular forms, which is probably why their vowels don’t change in their plural forms. (Self and shelf have short vowels too, and theirs don’t change in their plural forms, selves and shelves, but the l in these cases complicates matters. Notice that hooves has a different vowel sound than its singular form hoof.) TheScotch 07:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


1. For my part, I pronounce the vowels in "hoof" and "hooves" identically (excepting perhaps a change in length, as opposed to quality).
2. The topic of prescriptive vs. descriptive philosophies in lexicography is an interesting one, but it is really beside the point here. All that matters is that, as you noted, there is disagreement among reputable and widely used dictionaries.
3. Given this disagreement, all variants listed as acceptable by a reputable and widely used dictionary should be regarded as acceptable.
4. Given that we therefore have four acceptable words ("staff", "staffs", "stave", "staves"), the option of using them in a systematic manner ("staff-staffs", "stave-staves") is available to us. We should exercise this option.
5. The vowel change (or lack thereof) is not irrelevant. I understand the reason for which "leaf" becomes "leaves", etc. It is for this reason that it would be acceptable in speech to voice the final consonant (of the root word) in the plural ("stavs")--but without changing the quality of the vowel! This is commonly done with the word "paths" for example--which in fact provides a much more appropriate analogy. (The same reasoning that leads to "staff-staves" leads to "path-pathes".) Komponisto 17:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: "1. For my part, I pronounce the vowels in "hoof" and "hooves" identically...":

I pronounce the vowels in hoof and hooves differently, and so do most of my associates, but there are variable pronunciations for each.

Re: "5. The vowel change (or lack thereof)...":

As far as I can tell, you’ve pulled this out of your hat. It has no bearing on the matter that I can see.

Re: ". The topic of prescriptive vs. descriptive philosophies...is really beside the point here.":

I’ve decided upon further reflection that the problem is probably not that you are attempting to use a descriptive dictionary prescriptively, but that you are confused about what your dictionary is saying—and the fault may very well be your dictionary’s. I’ll explain momentarily. I do think you’re missing the point, though: A descriptive dictionary, at least a logically consistent one, isn’t advising us to use (or not to use) words in some manner or other; it is merely suggesting that some persons have used the words in question in the manners it describes.

Re: "4. Given that we therefore have four acceptable words ("staff", "staffs", "stave", "staves"), the option of using them in a systematic manner ("staff-staffs", "stave-staves") is available to us.":

No, this option is not available to us. The American Heritage is very clear about this: Staffs is an acceptable plural of staff for all meanings but the musical meaning. Staves is an acceptable plural of staff for all meanings except that having to do with a group of employees (which is rarely pluralized anyway because the singular form refers to a group already). It’s quite possible that your dictionary neglects to distribute clearly the plurals among different senses or it may be that your dictionary does distribute them clearly but you neglected to notice this. At the very least, forbidding us to pluralize staff in the musical sense with staves would constitute “original research”, and, I think I can add with impunity, highly eccentric “original research” at that. TheScotch 07:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not seeking to forbid you from pluralizing "staff" with "staves". I am seeking to do two things:
1. to prevent you from forbidding me to either (a) pluralize "staff" with "staffs" or (b) singularize "staves" with "stave".
2. to discourage you from pluralizing "staff" with "staves".

No, this option is not available to us. The American Heritage is very clear about this: Staffs is an acceptable plural of staff for all meanings but the musical meaning.

False! Citation: "staff." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 22 Apr. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/staff>.
Clicking on the above link (and scrolling down), you will see that what The American Heritage is very clear about is that "staffs" is indeed an acceptable plural for "staff" in all senses (including the musical sense), and that a "staff" in this sense is also called a "stave". My claim #4 is thus entirely vindicated, by your own preferred dictionary. In view of this, it seems mightily presumptuous of you to so confidently attribute a state of confusion to me.
Having established the empirical fact that dictionaries (including The American Heritage) permit both "staff-staffs" and "stave-staves", we can now return to the normative question of why either of these is preferable to "staff-staves". I maintain that "staff-staves" is a completely unnecessary irregularity. It is, furthermore, a particularly irksome irregularity--the type that smacks of confusion induced by ignorance (such as unawareness of the availability of the forms "stave" and "staffs"), coupled with that kind of distasteful snobbery that grammatical irregularities allow us to flaunt so effectively. In short, "staff-staves" concisely represents a lot of what is wrong with humanity!
But you have offered at least one linguistic argument for why the plural of "staff" should be "staves", so let me address it (again). You claim, if I understand correctly, that "staves" is an application of the rule that says "change final -f to -v when forming the plural"--the rule that changes "leaf" to "leaves" and "wife" to "wives". But this cannot be correct: for if we apply that rule to "staff", we get "staves" pronounced with the "a" as in "apple" (compare [the pronunciation of]: "calf", with plural "calves"). I don't think this is what you intend (if it were, and if everybody pronounced "staves" this way, I would have no complaint). I think you intend the "a" in "staves" to be pronounced as in "state". However, in order to obtain this from "staff", the "-f to -v" rule is not enough: you need an additional rule that changes the vowel sound in this environment. So what is the additional rule you have in mind? Why does it not apply to the word "calf"? If you want to argue that "staves" makes logical, systematic sense as the plural of "staff", these are the questions you have to answer. Otherwise it's just an unnecessary, ugly, purely lexical irregularity. Komponisto 22:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: "False! Citation: "staff." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.":

Pay attention, please. I very clearly said "American Heritage, first edition", and I cited this dictionary because the American Heritage, first edition was a direct reaction to the "anything goes" (I'm quoting E. B. White again) Merriam-Webster Third International. (Later editions of the American Heritage are successively less prescriptive.)

Re: "Clicking on the above link (and scrolling down), you will see that what The American Heritage is very clear about is that 'staffs' is indeed an acceptable plural for 'staff' in all senses (including the musical sense), and that a 'staff' in this sense is also called a "stave".":

I'm tempted to conclude that you at least as confused about the term clear as you are about the term staff. I clicked on your link and found that this cyber-space virtual dictionary makes no attempt at all to distribute plural and singular forms among the various meanings--in other words, it does not specify one way or the other--, and I've already pointed out (this is really getting tedious) that dictionaries that do this are not to be taken necessarily to endorse all singular and plural forms for all meanings.

When I said before that the fault may be your dictionary's, I was trying to be charitable. It would be better if all dictionaries (even virtual dictionaries) did specify, but you really can't expect an English dictionary to teach you how to speak English. Musically literate native speakers of English know that nobody says "staffs" to mean the plural of staff in the musical sense. As I've already pointed out, stave is a back-formation from staves. That means nobody said stave until staff/staves had already been long established as singular and plural forms of the same word, and when someone did finally say it, he said it in error (whether or not we should still take it to be an error--the only controversy before you came along).

Re: "But this cannot be correct: for if we apply that rule to 'staff', we get 'staves' pronounced with the 'a' as in 'apple' (compare [the pronunciation of]: 'calf', with plural 'calves').":

Most of the f words we've cited here have long vowels, which makes staff exceptional already. As I've already pointed out, self and shelf have short vowels also, but the l in each complicates matters. If this is so, it would seem to apply to calf as well. In any case, the subject here is f to v, not short to long. Short to long is not my concern, nor should it be yours. The main thing, though, is that these "rules" are not nearly as rigid and simplistic as you would have them be, and this is because English is an evolved language, not an invented language. You are attempting to invent your own language. You are perfectly welcome to invent your own language, or to invent as many languages as it pleases you to invent, but you are not welcome to foist your invented languages on the rest of us.

Re: "In short, 'staff-staves' concisely represents a lot of what is wrong with humanity!":

I have to think only someone who has worked himself into a disproportionate frenzy could conceive such a thing. The sooner you disabuse yourself of ideas like this, the happier you'll be. Calm down; everything will be okay. TheScotch 09:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


(That latter comment was intended to be lighthearted; the exclamation point should have been a clue, but perhaps I should have included a ":-)" or something. I promise I will refrain from further such attempts at jocularity.)
It is astonishing that you would have the nerve to accuse me of "inventing [my] own language" and "foisting [my] invented languages on the rest of us", while you apparently refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of any dictionary other than the first edition (!) of the American Heritage (a dictionary which is now in its fourth edition at least). How many others would I need to cite to convince you that "stave" and "staffs" are acceptable?

I clicked on your link and found that this cyber-space virtual dictionary makes no attempt at all to distribute plural and singular forms among the various meanings

Then you weren't looking. Look again; you will see that those meanings of "staff" for which only one plural form is acceptable are clearly indicated. For the rest, the indications at the top of the entry apply. Do you seriously intend to dispute this?

Short to long is not my concern, nor should it be yours

I never said it was. I'm talking about vowel quality, not length. Vowel length isn't even phonemic in standard English. You do know the difference, don't you?

l in each complicates matters. If this is so, it would seem to apply to calf as well.

The "l" in "calf" is unpronounced, and thus nonexistent from a phonological standpoint. We are talking about (morpho)phonology here; spelling is irrelevant.
(Frankly, if you are really unaware of such elementary distinctions as these, you have no business taking the condescending tone you have been taking.)

The main thing, though, is that these "rules" are not nearly as rigid and simplistic as you would have them be

Sorry, dodging the question won't work. We can argue about "rigidity" later, if necessary; for now, you still need to identify the rule you are invoking--if you're claiming there is one. Komponisto 21:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

symbols

I'm removing this table from the article -- I am on a Mac which shows the characters from the Japanese wiki fine -- but nada for these. -- Tarquin 20:55 Nov 2, 2002 (UTC)

I'd like to see this kind of table in the article. I'll start to recreate (most of) it using Lilypond and outputting png files. - Tobin Richard
I've created a few of the images that will be needed. I've been grouping similar symbols together. Image:Music_rests.png, Image:Music_notes.png, Image:Music_clefs.png. I'll try to get more done in the coming days. - Tobin Richard
Aren't the clefs a bit small? They look like the size you'd use for a change of clef midway through a line - I think it'd be better to have full size clefs. It's not a big deal, I suppose, but the C clef really ought to be as tall as the staff. --Camembert
What font should I have installed to see any of these? (Windows XP Home + IE6) Phil 15:53, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)
If you mean the stuff in the article, they're images in PNG format, so if your browser supports PGNs, you should be able to see them regardless of fonts. If you mean the stuff in the table below, I don't have a clue - I can't see them, and neither can plenty of others (that's why they were taken out of the article). --Camembert
I did a quick Google for "music notation font" and got a shed-load. I'm out of my depth here, can anyone help? Phil 14:51, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
I take it you mean fonts for viewing the table below? I don't think you'll have any luck. http://www.music-notation.info/en/compmus/musicfonts.html might be useful for music based fonts but to the best of my knowledge there isn't a browser that will understand Unicode music. Lilypond uses the Feta font for typesetting. - Tobin Richard
I went to the Unicode site and took a look, and that table is basically a list of the "Musical Symbols" sub-page of the Unicode character set. So logically there must be a font somewhere that I can convince IE to use when this page turns up on a Web Page (which is what it thinks Wikipedia pages are, after all). I'll take a look where you suggest, but I'm not holding my breath :-) Phil 09:02, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
There are some Unicode characters for which no fonts (or at least no useable fonts) exist. The unicode site has a list of the groups that provided fonts used in generating their charts at http://www.unicode.org/charts/fonts.html If you do find a music font then there is a very high probability that it wont be useable by windows. - Tobin Richard
You're right the clefs are a bit small (a result of the way I produced the image). I'll create a better version of the image soon. - Tobin Richard

table of symbols

CharacterName
𝄀Single Barline
𝄁Double Barline
𝄂Final Barline
𝄃Reverse Final Barline
𝄄Dashed Barline
𝄅Short Barline
𝄆Left Repeat Sign
𝄇Right Repeat Sign
𝄈Repeat Dots
𝄉Dal Segno
𝄊Da Capo
𝄋Segno
𝄌Coda
𝄍Repeated Figure-1
𝄎Repeated Figure-2
𝄏Repeated Figure-3
𝄐Fermata
𝄑Fermata Below
𝄒Breath Mark
𝄓Caesura
𝄔Brace
𝄕Bracket
𝄖One-Line Staff
𝄗Two-Line Staff
𝄘Three-Line Staff
𝄙Four-Line Staff
𝄚Five-Line Staff
𝄛Six-Line Staff
𝄜Six-String Fretboard
𝄝Four-String Fretboard
𝄞G Clef
𝄟G Clef Ottava Alta
𝄠G Clef Ottava Bassa
𝄡C Clef
𝄢F Clef
𝄣F Clef Ottava Alta
𝄤F Clef Ottava Bassa
𝄥Drum Clef-1
𝄦Drum Clef-2
𝄪Double Sharp
𝄫Double Flat
𝄬Flat Up
𝄭Flat Down
𝄮Natural Up
𝄯Natural Down
𝄰Sharp Up
𝄱Sharp Down
𝄲Quarter Tone Sharp
𝄳Quarter Tone Flat
𝄴Common Time
𝄵Cut Time
𝄶Ottava Alta
𝄷Ottava Bassa
𝄸Quindicesima Alta
𝄹Quindicesima Bassa
𝄺Multi Rest
𝄻Whole Rest
𝄼Half Rest
𝄽Quarter Rest
𝄾Eighth Rest
𝄿Sixteenth Rest
𝅀Thirty-Second Rest
𝅁Sixty-Fourth Rest
𝅂One Hundred Twenty-Eighth Rest
𝅃X Notehead
𝅄Plus Notehead
𝅅Circle X Notehead
𝅆Square Notehead White
𝅇Square Notehead Black
𝅈Triangle Notehead Up White
𝅉Triangle Notehead Up Black
𝅊Triangle Notehead Left White
𝅋Triangle Notehead Left Black
𝅌Triangle Notehead Right White
𝅍Triangle Notehead Right Black
𝅎Triangle Notehead Down White
𝅏Triangle Notehead Down Black
𝅐Triangle Notehead Up Right White
𝅑Triangle Notehead Up Right Black
𝅒Moon Notehead White
𝅓Moon Notehead Black
𝅔Triangle-Round Notehead Down White
𝅕Triangle-Round Notehead Down Black
𝅖Parenthesis Notehead
𝅗Void Notehead
𝅘Notehead Black
𝅙Null Notehead
𝅚Cluster Notehead White
𝅛Cluster Notehead Black
𝅜Breve
𝅝Whole Note
𝅗𝅥Half Note
𝅘𝅥Quarter Note
𝅘𝅥𝅮Eighth Note
𝅘𝅥𝅯Sixteenth Note
𝅘𝅥𝅰Thirty-Second Note
𝅘𝅥𝅱Sixty-Fourth Note
𝅘𝅥𝅲One Hundred Twenty-Eighth Note
𝅥Combining Stem
𝅦Combining Sprechgesang Stem
𝅧Combining Tremolo-1
𝅨Combining Tremolo-2
𝅩Combining Tremolo-3
𝅪Fingered Tremolo-1
𝅫Fingered Tremolo-2
𝅬Fingered Tremolo-3
𝅭Combining Augmentation Dot
𝅮Combining Flag-1
𝅯Combining Flag-2
𝅰Combining Flag-3
𝅱Combining Flag-4
𝅲Combining Flag-5
𝅳Begin Beam
𝅴End Beam
𝅵Begin Tie
𝅶End Tie
𝅷Begin Slur
𝅸End Slur
𝅹Begin Phrase
𝅺End Phrase
𝅻Combining Accent
𝅼Combining Staccato
𝅽Combining Tenuto
𝅾Combining Staccatissimo
𝅿Combining Marcato
𝆀Combining Marcato-Staccato
𝆁Combining Accent-Staccato
𝆂Combining Loure
𝆃Arpeggiato Up
𝆄Arpeggiato Down
𝆅Combining Doit
𝆆Combining Rip
𝆇Combining Flip
𝆈Combining Smear
𝆉Combining Bend
𝆊Combining Double Tongue
𝆋Combining Triple Tongue
𝆌Rinforzando
𝆍Subito
𝆎Z
𝆏Piano
𝆐Mezzo
𝆑Forte
𝆒Crescendo
𝆓Decrescendo
𝆔Grace Note Slash
𝆕Grace Note No Slash
𝆖Tr
𝆗Turn
𝆘Inverted Turn
𝆙Turn Slash
𝆚Turn Up
𝆛Ornament Stroke-1
𝆜Ornament Stroke-2
𝆝Ornament Stroke-3
𝆞Ornament Stroke-4
𝆟Ornament Stroke-5
𝆠Ornament Stroke-6
𝆡Ornament Stroke-7
𝆢Ornament Stroke-8
𝆣Ornament Stroke-9
𝆤Ornament Stroke-10
𝆥Ornament Stroke-11
𝆦Hauptstimme
𝆧Nebenstimme
𝆨End Of Stimme
𝆩Degree Slash
𝆪Combining Down Bow
𝆫Combining Up Bow
𝆬Combining Harmonic
𝆭Combining Snap Pizzicato
𝆮Pedal Mark
𝆯Pedal Up Mark
𝆰Half Pedal Mark
𝆱Glissando Up
𝆲Glissando Down
𝆳With Fingernails
𝆴Damp
𝆵Damp All
𝆶Maxima
𝆷Longa
𝆸Brevis
𝆹Semibrevis White
𝆺Semibrevis Black
𝆹𝅥Minima
𝆺𝅥Minima Black
𝆹𝅥𝅮Semiminima White
𝆺𝅥𝅮Semiminima Black
𝆹𝅥𝅯Fusa White
𝆺𝅥𝅯Fusa Black
𝇁Longa Perfecta Rest
𝇂Longa Imperfecta Rest
𝇃Brevis Rest
𝇄Semibrevis Rest
𝇅Minima Rest
𝇆Semiminima Rest
𝇇Tempus Perfectum Cum Prolatione Perfecta
𝇈Tempus Perfectum Cum Prolatione Imperfecta
𝇉Tempus Perfectum Cum Prolatione Perfecta Diminution-1
𝇊Tempus Imperfectum Cum Prolatione Perfecta
𝇋Tempus Imperfectum Cum Prolatione Imperfecta
𝇌Tempus Imperfectum Cum Prolatione Imperfecta Diminution-1
𝇍Tempus Imperfectum Cum Prolatione Imperfecta Diminution-2
𝇎Tempus Imperfectum Cum Prolatione Imperfecta Diminution-3
𝇏Croix
𝇐Gregorian C Clef
𝇑Gregorian F Clef
𝇒Square B
𝇓Virga
𝇔Podatus
𝇕Clivis
𝇖Scandicus
𝇗Climacus
𝇘Torculus
𝇙Porrectus
𝇚Porrectus Flexus
𝇛Scandicus Flexus
𝇜Torculus Resupinus
𝇝Pes Subpunctis
I cannot see them in my computer. What do I have to do to see them ??.

Might be interesting to stress here that staff notation (and some others such as alphabetic notation) notates the pitches (more or less) directly, while tablatures (and others) indicates gestures that produce the pitches; tablatures, therefore, usually are specific to a specified type of instrument.

I think it does already; what more do you want? Add what you think it needs. -- Merphant

In a similar fashion, the treble clef points to a G and the bass clef points to an F. I added that back in, because I couldn't see why it was wrong or inappropriate, but please feel free to discuss. Nevilley 09:13 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

To Do, summarized from comments in the article.

-- Merphant 04:49 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

Seeing Wikipedia supports Tex for mathematical formulae, wouldn't it be good one day for it to support the Tex extensions for musical notation? I suppose the first problem would be to decide which one of the various extensions to support... --PS4FA

Brion suggested that very thing some months ago, but I don't think there was a lot of interest in it. There's a page on meta about it: m:Music markup. If enough people show an interest in it, it'll probably get implemented eventually. Personally, I'm happy enough cobbling files together with Sibelius (which is in any case probably the only way to render more complex notation), but it's an interesting idea. --Camembert
I'm very interested in seeing music markup on Wikipedia. I doubt that there is anything that Sibelius can do that Lilypond can't (and Lilypond's engraving gives results that look much better, IMO). - Tobin Richard
We can use note images, initially. See Wikipedia:Christmas 2004 (sheet music).

The link to the shaped note article should be much less prominent. It really belongs near the bottom of the article. Similarly, to say that the shaped note system is common in the U.S. is a considerable exaggeration. It was never more than regionally common, and was never ubiquitous in those regions where it has been used. And if anything it has been declining over time, with the standard system of notation being taught in schools and most people having greater access to musical instruments (for which shaped notes are all but worthless).

UninvitedCompany 22:10, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in mentioning it early on - the reason I moved it up is because, although the page has the inclusive title "musical notation", it deals virtually exclusively with the "normal" European classical notation, and I think it's a good idea to mention early on that there are other ways of notating music, and to link to articles on them. But if you want to move it elsewhere, do feel free, I'm not in love with it or anything (and it's not something I'm very knowledgable about, I'm sure you know more about it than I). --Camembert

I'd like to know people's opinions of changing this page title to 'Western musical notation'. Section 2.10 talks about the "standard 12 tone scale", but arguably more people in the world (populations of Asia + Middle East + parts of Africa) would consider the 12 tone scale to be non standard.

Another reason I'd like to nominate this is because of consistency. Alphabet doesn't just give the Western use of the term, but a generic definition. Later on, it gives a link to the Roman alphabet, and I think musical notation should follow suit. -- Michael2

I'd be in favour of such a move in principle, but it has the same thing against it as moving classical music to western classical music would have; namely, most people link to musical notation expecting a discussion of "western" notation, and so if we move that info off to another page, you make readers click on an extra link to get to the info they want. Whether that's a good enough reason not to move the page or not, I don't know, but it's something to bear in mind.
What I do think we should do it mention other notational systems higher up in the page - not to discuss them in great detail, of course, but just to make the reader aware that there are a wide range of notational systems in use. At one time, the article was like this - I'm not sure when or why it changed. --Camembert

Solfa

I like the new additions on sol fa but there's a bit I am finding it difficult to understand:

Solfege is a way of assigning syllables to names of the musical scale. In order, they are: Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Ti, and Do (for the octave). Other variations are: Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Si, Do, and Fa, Sol, La, Fa, Sol, La, Mi, Fa.

How can that last possibly work when it has so much repetition? I have never heard of it, and I can't see how it fits into the normal use of solfa. Do enlighten me please. Nevilley 08:52, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The first variation (Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Si, Do), I believe, was common until John Curwen changed it so each syllable would start with a different letter. If I'm not mistaken, it is still common in non-English speaking countries. The second variation (Fa, Sol, La, Fa, Sol, La, Mi, Fa) uses four syllables and repeats three of them. This system always has a half step before the syllable "fa". It was once common in England, and, via England, in early America. It has survived in American shape note books such as the Sacred Harp and Southern Harmony. Check the Sacred Harp article and the Shape note article; these may answer some of your questions. - Rlvaughn 22:02, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Great, thanks very much for all that. You live and learn! :) Nevilley 23:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Nevilley, here are a couple of links to information by Dr. Warren Steel of the University of Mississippi that states it better than I can:
Utterly brilliant, and fascinating! Thanks again. Nevilley 09:45, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

“Solfege” is the French cognate of the Italian “solfeggio”. My undergraduate ear training courses used the latter term. The problem with “solfege” is that the French think “re” is a key (the key of D), and thus “solfege” implies (and creates a furtive bias in favor of) fixed-do systems.

I find that "solfege" is used interchangeably for both. I'm Canadian, so this may be a regional dialect, but I've never actually heard anyone say "solfeggio" in my education, though "moveable or fixed do" was often spoken of to distinguish between the two systems. In the French part of Canada, the fixed-do is more prominent, so the difference comes up a lot here, but I've never heard "solfeggio" used. - Rainwarrior 21:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you've never heard "solfeggio", it's either because you're Canadian or because you're relatively young (the victim of historical revisionism). "Solfeggio" was not so very long ago far more common in the United States than "Solfege", and this is clearly because "fixed-do" systems were relatively unheard of in the United States until fairly recently. If your names for keys are the solmization syllables, you're pretty much stuck with "fixed-do", but otherwise it is indefensible as an ear-training method. As an undergraduate, I'd never heard of "solfege" and neither had I heard of "fixed-do". There was no need to speak of "fixed-do" because it made no sense for non-French musicians, and it was not suggested by the term "solfeggio" the way that it is inevitably suggested by the term "solfege". It can be no coincidence that "fixed-do" systems and the term "solfege" were introduced here simultaneously.

It is true that I am not that old, but even as a very young child I remember always "solfege". Are you arguing that you would like the article changed in some way? You seem to have said above that today, in the US, "solfege" is now more commonly said than "solfeggio". If this is the case, I would argue that the more common term should be the one used for the article. (I don't see why the oldest term should have precedence over the most common term.) Anyhow, if you wish to argue the merits of fixed versus moveable Do (which doesn't have much relevance to the article), I wholeheartedly agree that moveable is superior, though I must say that the French musicians I know do not seem to suffer any deficiency due to their fixed-do training. Rainwarrior 03:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Are you arguing that you would like the article changed in some way?" I wasn't arguing that particularly, but, yes, I think it should recognize the term "solfeggio" and explain the relation between the two terms. Re: "You seem to have said above that today, in the US, 'solfege' is now more commonly said than 'solfeggio'." No, I am implying that "solfege" is now much more common in the United States than it once was. Re: "(I don't see why the oldest term should have precedence over the most common term.)" I should have thought this precisely what "precedence" means. Scholarship as well as Supreme Court jurisprudence does need to respect precedent.

Explanation

Randywombat, I don't have any disagreement with you on this. You may not disagree with me either, though your note implies I did not make myself clear. The statement that the "shape note system is found in church hymnals, sheet music, and song books, especially in the American south" was meant to show where the music is found (church hymnals, sheet music & singing convention type song books) - not how much of it was found there. I would only expect the rarest of appearances outside those uses. I removed some because I felt it would be taken to modify all three. Probably very few of what most people would consider hymnals are still printed in shape notes, though a number of books that southern churches use as hymnals are available in such. I rarely buy sheet music, but most "southern gospel" songs used to available in shape notes. As for singing convention type song books (I don't know a better term for them), most of them are in shape notes. The Sacred Harp (a four-note shape note book) has been gaining interest, and is now used in the West, Midwest, and Northeast, and is even becoming somewhat popular in England. But that is somewhat of an anomaly, I suppose. - Rlvaughn 22:02, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Right you are - thanks for the information! You're right, I think we were at cross purposes. I was just thinking of the newcomer who reads the sentence ""shape note system is found in church hymnals, sheet music, and song books, especially in the American south" and thinks that church hymnals, sheet music and song books are mostly written in shape note notation, which I don't think is true overall. But I'm British, and I'm still learning about this shape note thing; perhaps it's more widespread than I thought. You're right, we don't disagree. (Maybe I should have posted talk before I made the edit!) Toby W 09:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I just wanted you to know why I had done that. When I did the edit it seemed clear and to say what I was attempting to say. But after seeing your edit with the word "some" reinserted it serves both purposes. - Rlvaughn 12:00, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bb Horn Clef

I've never heard of its existence let alone seen it in print. Can anyone show me an example of it and explain it's use? Thanks. Ryan

I don't know that Bb horn notation can really be said to use a "Bb Horn Clef." Like clarinet music, most horn music is written a full step higher than it is played. Unlike octavation differences among instruments (like the guitar), a clef change alone cannot account for the whole step difference since both the key signature and any accidentals present must also change. Perhaps the reference should be removed from the article. I don't play the horn so I'm not going to presume to be expert enough to change it. UninvitedCompany 18:30, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you. The reference should be removed. I do play horn, by the way, that's why I was shocked to see it in the first place. And I think a distinction should be made when using the generic term of "horn" as referring to any wind instrument and "the" horn, commonly referred to erroneously in America as "French". In western classical music, "the" horn was written in all the keys, but today it is most often, if not always, written in F, meaning the printed notes are a perfect fifth higher than they sound. Treble clef is most common but the use of bass clef is frequently used. Is there a list of transposing instruments on wikipedia? It might be a good article to link to. Ryan
Isn't it the case that some old B flat (French) horn music is written not a whole tone higher than it sounds, but a ninth higher (ie, an extra octave higher)? I seem to recall that this used to be fairly common (even if it isn't any longer). If so (and I may be wrong) I think that may be what the article is referring to. Of course, an octave transposition doesn't make it a different clef, so the reference to a different clef should still be removed (or at least changed accordingly).
You're right that horn in B flat is written a ninth higher than sounding. But to clarify, one should use the complete term of "B flat Basso" as there are numerous scores which call for "Horn in B flat Alto" in which the music is written a whole step higher than sounding. There are also horns in E, E flat, D, D flat, C [basso], C alto, B (H in the German system of notation), B flat basso. That's the lowest the horn usually goes. Above the standard pitch fundamental of F, we find transpositions in F sharp, G, A flat, A, and Bb alto, C alto, D alto, E flat alto. The C, D, and E flat alto part are commonly found in the early symphonies of WA Mozart and Haydn.
My point being that the mention of transposing horn clefs is not only erroneous, but incomplete. I don't believe that the Music Notation article is an appropriate place to mention all the possibilities, so it's best to omit the B flat horn clef entirely. Ryan
You're right of course (and it's not in the article any longer). Just to put my mind at rest - is B flat alto more common than B flat basso, or is it the other way round? Nothing to do with the article, I just want to know if my memory is playing tricks on me or not (wouldn't be the first time...). --Camembert
I would say B flat basso is more common. Ryan
By the way, for transposing instruments, there is the cryptically titled transposing instrument ;) --Camembert
Ha, thanks for pointing that out. I did find it on my own. I was hoping for a more detailed list with graphics of musical notation showing which pitch is sounded when a particular note on an instrument is played. I'd be more than happy to create one if someone out there would be interested in helping me with the graphics end of it all. Ryan.
If you want graphics of notation, I'm happy to provide. Let me know what you need on my talk page if you like. --Camembert

Just out of interest - I've never heard of 'horn' being used to refer to any wind instrument. For me, it only refers to the (French) horn (plus baritone horn, tenor horn, etc in brass bands). Is the 'generic horn' an American thing? Toby W 18:58, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's a usage most commonly found, I think, in jazz. For example, Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie Parker are commonly described as horn players, though the former played the trumpet and the latter the sax. --Camembert
Also the Flugel horn. In my experience, the individual in the jazz band referred to as the "horn player" arrives on stage in possession of some combination of trumpets in various keys and possibly one or more Flugel horns. "Horn" would not encompass any of the woodwind instruments, even in the United States. UninvitedCompany 21:19, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have heard horn refer to woodwinds instruments. Mostly by my midwestern grandfather. Ryan
No, it is definitely used to refer to saxes too. It's an ignorance thing in a way, but quite sweet. It's not flutes but any of the wind instruments you might expect as standard in an otherwise typical pop/rock/some jazz/whatever band. It's what we used to call the "front line" instruments, i.e. not the rhythm section, of a dance-based band. Tpt, sax, tbn basically. Note that in a clever piece of marketing the new Associated Board jazz exams for wind instruments are the "Jazz Horns" syllabus. See for example [1] Nevilley 01:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hm, and it looks like a Blue Note record sleeve too. Where will it all end... --Camembert
Right - interesting - thanks! Toby W 09:43, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Even instruments like flutes can be included under the label horns in certain contexts—school marching bands, for instance. —Caesura(t) 00:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for Christmas 2004

I suggest collaborate with Wikimedia Christmas 2004, expanding the musical sheets of Christmas carols. This is a very important project for free wiki music.

Embedding lilypond...

I think it would be a Good Thing to embed lilypond musical notation into wikimedia, as LaTex is. So it would be possible to typeset music directly into wikimedia, listen to it and view its lilypond source.

See meta:Music markup. I asked one of the devs (Brion, who is a patient soul) about it a few weeks ago, and got the reply that it would be implemented sometime in the future, after more important things got taken care of (that is, "real soon now"). So yes, everyone thinks it would be a Good Thing; it's just a matter of developer time. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

we need a category for musical notation and computer software or computer formats

or sth like it. is there anywhere sth like it? so Lilypond MusicXML GUIDO and other format can link to that category.

see here for more info (should be mentioned as an external link for sure) A lot of info on Music notation information site --Nkour 18:19, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Try Category:Musical software, if you've not yet found it by now. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Letter Notation Issues

Could someone please:
1. List the letters in the letter notation (e.g. C, D, E... , Cis etc.) - actually they appear in the text without explanation, or am I wrong?
2. Write about the difference between the "English" and the "German" notations (B, H vs. ?, B; are there any other differences?).

--84.163.72.239 09:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Expansion needed: There is a convention whereby upper case letters are used below middle C and lower case letters above, and the letters are doubled (CC, aaa) to indicate which octave one is in. Alternatively, letters followed by primes (C', a'') are used the same way. The discussion of letter notation is not complete without this. Someone ought to add it. I can't because I don't remember exactly how it works and I can't look it up in Wikipedia. Jm546 16:15:02, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

There are at least three such systems in use, two of which just use numbers (c1, c2, c3, etc.) to indicate the various octaves, and one similar to what you describe. But this belongs in Note (music). —Wahoofive (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


The letter notation you describe is called Abc notation. The Abc notation article strangely does not have an illustration or map showing the relationship between notes on a staff and the letters though. Abc notation includes note lengths, time signature, accidentals, etc, and is a viable musical notation. A related note notation is Scientific pitch notation, which uses numbers instead of doubling letters. I think both notations should be linked to Musical Notation, since it is natural to attempt to find them here. I'd make the edit, but I don't know enough about wikipedia to feel confident in doing so...

--Eraticus 22:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)--

Integer notation

Integer notation as described here really isn't a kind of notation, but rather a kind of musical analysis. Theorists who use such notation (such as Allen Forte) still use conventional music notation to indicate specific pitches and rhythms. So this whole section belongs on some other page. --Wahoofive 06:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The same would then go for letter notation. Hyacinth 03:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Solfege edit

I removed the following text from the Solfege section, added by User:198.234.216.213:

The solfege syllables are derived from the Latin words Dominus, Regina Cæli, Microcosmos, Fatus, Sol, Voie Lacte, and Sidereal

This information is in conflict with the Ut queant laxis article, and anyway belongs there (or on Solfege), not in this article. —Wahoofive | Talk 17:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. As far as I know the derivation of the solfege syllables from Ut queant laxis has never been in dispute. Or let me put it this way: if there is an alternate theory, it needs a source. Antandrus 04:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bach Fugue Musical Example

Is it entirely helpful to have this version of the musical example? I agree that most of us are familiar with the right-hand part being written in the treble (G) clef. But Bach himself wrote the piece notating the upper stave in a soprano c-clef. Surely, in an article specifically about the history, development and use of staves/staffs and clefs, isn't it counter-productive to show a modern "ersatz" version, rather than the clefs Bach used himself (which are different)? Or is this just being overly pedantic?

Don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~, Dr Woland. I agree with you, and really the section on staff notation should be split into a separate article. I'll put it on my to-do list. We should have an example, however, although it could be a single-staff one —Wahoofive (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

British names for the duration symbols

I learned the names as follows: breve, semibreve, minim, crotchet, quaver, semiquaver, demisemiquaver, hemidemisemiquaver, semihemidemisemiquaver, demisemihemidemisemiquaver, hemidemisemihemidemisemiquaver, semihemidemisemihemidemisemiquaver, etc. repeating as much of the "hemidemisemi" as is required. This is at least consistent with "Terminorum Musicae Index Septem Linguis Redactus", Baerenreiter 1978, ISBN 3-7618-0553-5, which translates a 1/128th-note (five flags) as semihemidemisemiquaver. I've never heard of a quasihemidemisemiquaver so think this needs changing.

all the best,

James Ingram (British copyist)

There are two problems with "quasi": 1) It doesn't mean "half" precisely. 2) It doesn't rhyme with "semi". On the hand, since there are, as far as I know, no other rhyming synonyms for "semi" besides "demi" and "hemi", in my opinion it is best that a British musician never attempt to play a note faster than a sixty-fourth.

Computer representation

Someone recently added [2] abc notation to this article, but it seems to me we should have a whole section on computer representation of music (MusicTEX, MIDI, etc., not to mention conventional notation programs such as Finale and Sibelius). Is there an article which covers this? I hope someone more knowledgable than I can write this section. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Content to be removed

I'd like to suggest that the article be rolled back to the version before the two posts by John Keller, as they are blatent cheap plugs... The submited graphic is named "ES plug.jpg". I wouldn't mind a mention of the idea and a link to its own article, but it seems a bit pushy the way it is now.

NickSentowski 20:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What would be an acceptable way of illustrating some of the many alternative notations that use the principle of a chromatic staff? They are mostly quite new, and exist in self-published form, like my own invention, Express Staff. However they do point out an important new direction in thinking that counters the widely held view that music and its traditional notated form are one. I am new to this site and do not want to offend anyone, but would naturally like my notation to be shown if possible. John Keller 13:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. The section on this page describing "Alternative Music Notations that Use Chromatic Staves" seems fine to me. This is a summary article. If a more detailed article is warranted, it can have a cross-reference, as Figured Bass, Parsons Code, Tablature, and others have. (I'm surprised we don't have a summary for Neumes, however). That said, Wikipedians are generally suspicious of people who write about themselves or their own inventions (see Wikipedia:Vanity). You'll get a better reception if you write about the topic in general, rather than your own contributions to the field, and even then only if you can back up your assertions with sources which the community agree are independent. If you have more questions, you can ask here or on my talk page —Wahoofive (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In these talk pages, how do I start a new discussion topic? I would like to ask what is meant in the "Effects" subsection - doesnt seem to make sense. I would also suggest changing the word "scope" in Elements of standard notation to "range", and add something about accidentals. In the historical development of music notation I could also write about how the letter A came to be assigned to the pitch it has, with reference to the medieval thesis Dialogus de Musica, formerly attributed to Odo of Cluny.John Keller 00:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you've figured out the answer to the first question, probably by clicking on the + sign at the top of the page. Conversely, you can manually add a new section header like this:

==A new topic==

and it will produce the same effect.
The historical details you mention might be more appropriately added to more specific pages, such as Accidental or Note. This is just a summary page. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, John Keller, if you're familiar at all with Arnold Schoenberg's own experimental notation system example ? It's quite similar to your own. He describes it in an essay that you can find in his book, "Style and Idea". (I'd give you a page number, but I don't have the book on hand at the moment.) It might be worth mentioning on the notation page here as well. Rainwarrior 02:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

A follow up, now that I've recovered my book. It is: Schoenberg, Arnold. Style and Idea (ed. Leo Stein) Belmont 1975. pp. 354-362, the title of the chapter is "A New Twelve-Tone Notation, 1924". Rainwarrior 13:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The "History" and "Development of Musical Notation" sections seem like they should be combined. They contain some redundant info, but also seem to contradict each other (the first one traces music notation back to Egypt, the second to Sumeria). 69.86.178.119 06:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Max Clarke

Effects

quote: "Musicological methods tend to foreground those musical parameters which can be easily notated...they tend to neglect or have difficulty with parameters which are not easily notated", such as Fred Lerdahl. "Notation-centric training induces particular forms of listening, and these then tend to be applied to all sorts of music, appropriately or not."

This syntax doesnt make sense? - John Keller 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty dense. I think I see what that section is trying to say, though: people who learn music primarily via notation more often have difficulty with the intuitive, non-notated aspects of music. This strikes me as somewhat tautological (i.e. whatever you study is what you know best), but comparable arguments have made a connection between widespread literacy and the lack of ability for bards to memorize thousands of lines of poetry. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I figured it out! (Noticed "Edit this page", not the +)

I understand and agree with the idea; its just that the sentence doesnt make sense to me. It seems that there is something missing. EG, perhaps: "Musicological methods tend to foreground those musical parameters which can be easily notated...they tend to neglect or have difficulty with parameters which are not easily notated", such as tone quality or agogic (timing-related) expression. According to Fred Lerdahl, "notation-centric training induces particular forms of listening, and these then tend to be applied to all sorts of music, appropriately or not."

The way it presently reads, is that "Fred Lerdahl" is a parameter which is not easily notated! Or am I missing something? _ John Keller 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I suggest replacing the first half of the quotation with some home-grown copy, incorporating your suggested improvement. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Also: "foreground" is a noun, not a verb.

Development of music notation

Does anyone else think that this section should precede the "Standard notation described" one? It looks out of place to me, I wonder if placing it right after "Origins" would work better. Merging those sections also seems like a good idea to me. What do you think? Jashiin 17:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have a more radical proposal. Everything that's part of "standard notation" (including its history) should be moved to a separate page, with just a summary paragraph on this page, the same as Figured bass and Klavar notation and so on. It's a systemic bias thing; this page should give a general world overview of notation, and leave the details to a specialized page. Everything that's now in section 2 (except for "effects", which apply to any notation system) would go on that new page. What's now section 3 would be renamed "Types of music notation" or something like that and the summary included as part of that. We probably could use some subsections within that, for example notations specialized for one type of instrument. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you on all these. I also suggest creating a category (Category:Music notation, Category:Musical notation, or something like that) for all notation pages. I found it really weird that neither modal nor mensural notation were mentioned here before my edit, and a category I think would make things a little easier. Jashiin 18:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Wahoofive, I like your proposal. We may start writing the new page for standard/modern/western musical notation, using material from this page and from de:Notation (Musik), which looks neat and has a better illustration for the basic elements in the notation. Notice that Japanese Wikipedia already has separate pages: ja:記譜法 for musical notations in general and ja:五線譜 for the standard notation. That is the way to go. -- Felix Wan 00:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

See Category:Musical notation. The mensural notation article was created very recently. What's a good title for the new article? How about Western musical notation? (of course, weird avant-garde notations are Western, too, and so are figured bass and Braille for that matter.) Better ideas? Standard musical notation is really asking for it. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's call it Standard musical notation (20600 Google hits[3], "standard music notation" has 42200 [4]). "Western" and "modern" are not so popular and may cause misunderstandings. -- Felix Wan 01:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Time signature font?

Does anybody know what "font" time signatures are written in? I mean for your standard music notation. They all seem to be in a consistant font, but I dont know what that is. Can somebody help me? Thanks a lot.--156.34.232.19 17:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Finale 2006, for classical music, the font is called "Maestro", and for jazz it is called "Jazz" DA723 04:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are just font files, and proprietary to Finale. I think he more likely is asking about the kinds of Typefaces used in music notation. This actually varies quite widely, however, from publisher to publisher. Some contemporary european scores, for instance, are using thin Sans-Serif characters for their time signatures. Most older publications have a "Modern" type Serif font with some rounded serifs, like Bodoni, for time signatures. - Rainwarrior 06:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Brush Sweep Notation

Can somebody supply an accurate brush sweep notation image?

Here is the description again: "Brush sweep: horizontal line (replacing note head) in E snare space with slur to show brush is not lifted."

1) So the basic brush sweep should be depicted with a short horizontal (not diagonal) line, that is, parallel to the lines of the staff it falls between. The note stem will be perpendicular to this short horizontal line and start in the middle of it to make a sort of uppercase "T"--or an inverted uppercase "T" depending which way the stem is going. (Needless to say--I hope--, there should be no serifs on the "T".)

2) The slur is not used unless there are multiple strokes (or sweeping shapes across the drumhead) that are connected-- connected in that the brush doesn't leave the snare head. If the brush does leave the snare head, which, of course, is another thing the drummer might want to do (or be ordered to do by the composer), then the sweep notes are not slurred. In other words, the basic notation that should be depicted should omit the slur; the slur is optional, depending whether the sweeps are to be connected or not. Or we could show it both ways, with slur and without. Note that these are slurs, not ties. In other words, if there are three or more sweep strokes that are to be connected there should be only one curve above all of them, not two or more curves.

The problems with using virgules (diagonal lines) instead of "T" 's for sweeps is that 1) virgules are currently widely used to show something completely different; 2) virgules don't intuitively suggest a sweep the way I think "T" 's do.

Thank you.

In my own experience, I've never seen that notation. The best way (in my opinion) that I've seen for notating brushes was to write "Brushes" at the outset and use stacatto marks for strokes and no accent or tenuto marks for the sweep, leaving a footnote of explanation at the bottom of the page. But, as I'm sure you know, percussion notation varies really wildly between scores. If a picture of this particular alternative is important to you, why not make one yourself? You could save one of the existing drum notation pictures and edit it with microsoft paint, or whatever program you've got handy. - Rainwarrior 18:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, stacatto marks should be reserved for stacatto, which would imply choking here. Tenuto marks in drum notation ordinarily imply mild dynamic accents. Dynamic accents are the lifeblood of the sweep.

symbols used in modern musical notation

The image showing the musical notes and rests and their durations does not appear to have the same numbering system as the subsequent explanations. The semibreve is the first note on the stave in the image, and it is marked as 1. In the text below, 1 corresponds to the crotchet explanation!! Please could someone verify this, and make changes to the image if necessary..I am horribly computer illiterate and would rather not accidently erase the entire article! Thanks. 213.22.64.246 11:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This is true. Originally, I think it was written with "beats in 4/4" in mind. Really, it doesn't matter what number we start with as long as the relationships are consistent, but it's probably good to have it correspond to the preceding example, so I've made the suggested change. - Rainwarrior 18:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There is still a very large problem here. This section strongly suggests that a whole rest necessarily lasts twice as long as a half rest, and that simply and clearly is not true. A whole rest lasts as long as the measure--always. Thus a whole rest in 3/4 last one and one-half times as long as a half note. A whole rest in 2/4 lasts just as long as a half rest.

Fred Lerdahl quote

In the "Effects" section, there is a mistake that makes it rather amusing. I'm not sure what it should read, so I won't fix it.Rigadoun 22:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Its less funny now, but it never was a Lerdahl quote. Hyacinth 01:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
That's better, but it would be even better if it were attributed to either Tagg or Middleton. Are all three paragraphs from the same source? Rigadoun 15:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Musical notation in ethnomusicology

I had added this section and made it a stub section. Somebody has removed the stub tag. I did not put the section stub tag there by mistake, I meant it. IMHO, details on such notation systems should be added here (or a link to a separate article), i.e. the section should be expanded. The stub section tag means just that. If somebody is not interested in a section, O.K., but that does not mean that the section should not be expanded. The Article is missing a NPOV and one of the things missing is information on such notations. Nannus 21:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

In an article this long, it is not appropriate to call a section a "stub". It is not worth having more than that here. If there is more information available, start a new article, put it in that, and then maybe call that article a stub, but it doesn't need to be expanded here. - Rainwarrior 04:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the stub tag. On a related note, Musical notation in ethnomusicology is too esoteric a subject to have its own section, and I'm sure someone will soon merge the text into one of the introductory sections, if I don't. Karol 11:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd agree with that from my own experience. I haven't actually come across any specifically ethnomusicological notations. Everything I've read used either western notation, or the traditional notation of the culture. I don't doubt that a few have devised better systems of notation for this kind of study, but it would probably be obscure by nature (unless someone has come up with a general system to cover a wide field of music... I can't imagine what such a system would look like though). - Rainwarrior 16:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There are notations that are modified forms of standard notation. There are also completely different notations for special purposes, for example, a numerical notations is used in some publication oo African (e.g. Ugandan) Xylophone music. Nannus 18:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
An example of a numerical notation can be found on the following web page [Transcriptions of Amadinda pieces]. The page is in German, but I suppose even without understanding the comments on it, one can get an idea. (I am currently writing an article about Baganda Music which is not yet finished but will explain this particlular musical tradition. Nannus 15:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The page with the numerical xylophone notations has been removed but these scores are published in "* Kubik, Gerhard "Die Amadinda-Musik von Buganda", in: Musik in Afrika. Hrsg. Arthur Simon, (Staatliche Museen) Berlin, 1983, S. 139-165"

NPOV

I have marked the article a lacking a global view. A quick search of the internet shows that musical notation systems have been developed in India, China, Japan and Korea (and probably in other cultures as well). An article on musical notation should give an overview of all of these systems. I suggest to move the extensive (and very good) description of the standard notation to a separate article and to include a link to that article in the "musical notation" article. This should then include links to articles about other notation systems as well. A good example of how such a globally balanced article might look is the article on writing systems and the List of writing systems referenced from there. Nannus 18:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. We should have at this page a list of notation systems and a history of music notation for them. From here we should have a strong link to an article describing the modern standard western notation which takes up most of this article, currently (it would probably be best to leave its history here and link back from there, as it is interrelated with other systems of notation). I don't know what to call that article, though. Western musical notation? That seems too vague a name, for me. Maybe Modern western musical notation, but that's long winded. I think I'd favour Standard musical notation, but would you consider that too biased? - Rainwarrior 20:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
On first thought it struck me as very biased to call modern western notation "Standard musical notation". But on second thought, western notation has obviously moved into almost all other nations and is used in nearly all near and far Eastern pedagogical institutions and professional groups, as in national or regional orchestras, etc.,. It's a hard call. Is there another notation system even in play in any nation or region? Of all the sophisticated Indian forms of notation, is there one that is still widely used there, perhaps in some of the large sitar-based ensembles? If there's even one real competitor out there, I'd say calling western notation "Standard notation" would be a case of systemic bias. But if all other systems really are "non-extant", the term "Standard notation" would fall to western notation by default. I wish I knew the answer but I suppose we need someone with real knowledge of current practice in India and elsewhere. JDG 22:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
At least we can produce some stubs on notations from India, China, Japan, Korea etc. Searching the web turns up some interesting stuff. I also found something about a church music notation from 6th century Ethiopia. Nannus 15:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I am planning to create a separate article on "Western musical notation" (with redirections from "Standart musical notation" and "European musical notation" and a link from the top of this article, but it might take some time before I have the time to do so. If anybody else has the time to do such a thing, go ahead. The current article should only contain a short section alongside sections on other notations, and a link. I suppose that the remaining article should be made a stub because a lot of things are missing. Searching the web, I have found hints on notations from the countries mentioned above (e.g. different notation systems for Japanese percussion instruments, Koto, shamisen and shakuhachi) as well as central Java, Bali (for Gamelan music) Turkey and maybe Arabia. There might be something from Thailand (but the pages I found where mostly in Thai, so I am not sure, and maybe some Khmer stuff too (but I don't know). To find the Ethiopian stuff, enter "St. Yared" in Google. I also guess there might be notations for church music from Armenia, Georgia, Egypt (Coptic) and from Arabian and Aramaic churches (Syria, Libanon). If such systems exist, they might or might not be related to byzantinian nonation. What kind of system is used in the russian and greek churches? There is a lot of stuff to explore and include in this article. I have not yet tried to find anything from Tibet or Mongolia (actually all I did was a short half-an-hour web search). If anybody has the time to continue here, go ahead (my own focus is currently on African music, but the more I find out about notations, the more interesting they get, so I will return here! Nannus 19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
We need some kind of source for the claim that Indian musical notation existed in 1500 BC. I have read in M.L. West's articles that Vedic manuscripts (which are obviously later than 1500 BC) contain pitch-inflection marks that show the inflection of the language, but that's rather different from a precise system of pitch notation. Someone has to have some source on this stuff, as well as the later "Chanda Sutra." I haven't seen any evidence that the lipi existed earlier than the thirteenth century AD, but I would be fascinated to know the evidence that it existed earlier. Ocanter 23:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I added sources for Kilmer's work on the cuneiform musical inscriptions. What are the sources for the alleged ancient systems of music notation in India? Somebody must have something. Ocanter 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Since no one has offered any sources for any of the stuff that supposesedly predates the Mesopotamian corpus, I am going to remove it. If anybody has any real sources for them, please help out. M. L. West has said elsewhere that the cuneiform fragments are the oldest specimens of musical notation, which certainly sounds reasonable, given the extreme age of the earliest tablets. The Indian stuff is interesting, but it sounds like someone is taking later manuscripts and hypothesizing that the system has existed for millennia. Sources would be great. Ocanter 19:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the article (now) has so much anti-Western bias that not even a link to common music notation or standard music notation can be found. It's like having a kitchen with everthing but a kitchen sink!

I'm trying to write a computer program to translate MIDI into sheet music, and I'd like to use Wikipedia as a resource. At least give me a link to an article explaining "Western" notation concepts as:

  • 5 horizontal lines in a staff
  • putting solid or hollow elliptical note heads on or between lines
  • 12 semitones per octave

When did "the West" become taboo in an English-language encyclopedia primarily written and read members of the Western Civilization? --Uncle Ed 01:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The notation you're talking about is called Modern musical notation and is explained in the article Modern musical symbols 81.26.90.134 17:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Computer-oriented notations

XML-based notation systems are mentioned in the section on Braille notation, but there is no further detail. MIDI-file-formats might also be considered musical notations. Nannus 15:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The .MID file format is not human-readable. There are some that are, such as the MusicXML and Lilypond, but these are intended to be fed into a program that transforms them into conventional musical notation; the file itself is not really intended to be read as music by a human, it's just supposed to be human editable. The only file "format" I can think of that is supposed to be read directly is text file guitar tablature. - Rainwarrior 16:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Great, why not just include this information in the article?
Well, the software programs have their own article at Scorewriter (a bizarre name), MusicXML and Lilypond are covered there and in their own articles. The information about guitar tablature is there, along with a reference to its own article, Tablature. I don't think it's fair to call, say, MusicXML or Lilypond music "notation" because they really aren't readable by a musician; they're intended to be transformed into regular notation by software. They are a way of storing music notation (file format), rather than a type of notation on their own. As such, I think their reference at Scorewriter covers the connection to this article, but we should probably have a "Software" stub section in this article that links to Scorewriter more strongly. - Rainwarrior 15:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that "XML based" deserves mention at the top of the page, a XML based notation is very much in the minority as far as computer formats for storing musical information go. I don't think something that's designed to be read by a computer can even rightly be called "notation". Is a "DOC" file a form of "language notation"? Neither the musician nor the musicologist would spend any time reading a MusicXML document as text, because the format is intended to be translated by computer into regular notation. (And once translated, it's not XML anymore, it's just plain western notation.) It is not a notation in itself, it is a means to produce standard notation. - Rainwarrior 18:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There are formats intended for computer assisted study rather than translation into other notational systems, like NEUMES (but even NEUMES doesn't call itself a notation). I don't think you can rightly call any one computer file format "musical notation" and not others. What distinguishes MusicXML from the MIDI file format? - Rainwarrior 18:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should at least mention such notations and contain a link to an article devoted to them. This could be done in the beginnig of the article in a section defining its scope and saying what the article is not about. Nannus 20:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've adjusted what you added to the lead, and added a short section about ways of storing information on computer. My own preference is not to call these things "notation", really, but I can see how it could be argued that they are, and I think the wording I've chosen permits both views. What do you think? - Rainwarrior 01:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Very good like this! Nannus 19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Guido and the Muslims

This is an interesting assertion that I have not heard before. I will have to track down the source and read it, but you have not provided a proper bibliographical reference, so I have marked your paragraphs as "citation needed" (if no source is provided, they will eventually be removed).

I have one major problem with it, though, your line here is quite misleading:

Do (Dal) Re (Ra) Mi (Meem) fa (Fa) sol (Sad) la (Lam) ti or si (Sin)

Guido's syllables were "Ut Re Mi Fa Sol La". There was no "Do", and no "Ti". They were derived from the hymn, Ut queant laxis. (Furhermore, you're comparing an English transliteration of arabic words against Latin.) I am removing that segment from what you have added. I would like to know, however, whether you are really using a 19th century source; surely there must be modern scholarship that would be more reliable source of information about this, we have learned a great deal in a hundred years. (If there is not a modern source, I would assert that you are putting undue weight on an unpopular theory.) I am also making a few other minor changes:

  1. Trying to remove "we find", as a matter of style.
  2. Removing: Count Souabe Hermanus. His relevance to musical notation is not explained.
  3. Removing: influence of muslim music on european: not relevant to notation.
  4. Removing: redundant use of "paved the way".

-- Rainwarrior 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Since the request for citation has gone unanswered, I am removing this material from the page. If it is accurate, I would hope that it can be given the proper citations and restored, but since I cannot verify its accuracy myself, I will leave it here. - Rainwarrior 15:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Scholar and music theorist Isidore of Seville, writing in the early 7th century, famously remarked that it was impossible to notate music. Muslims or Arabs were accredited for a number of musical instruments such as, Lute, violin, and rebec, but the first to suggest the contribution of Muslim scholars and artists to musical theory was a French scholar named Laborde. In his book "Essai sur la Musique ancienne et moderne" (1780), pp.8-9, p.22, he attributed the alphabetic notation of musical notes to Muslims. The notation, which consists of the solmization syllables do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, and si, is widely known as Latin, borrowed from the syllables of the Hymn of St. John. The Italian musician and Benedictine monk, Guido d'Arezzo (c.995-1050), is credited with its invention in 1026. However Villoteau, (d.1839) took the position of Laborde, admitting the Muslim influence on the theory of music. From comparing Guido's music scale with that of the Muslims, he found striking resemblances which led him to believe that the former had adopted his theory from the Muslims. He commented: "according to all appearances it is this latter which served as the model for that of Guido of Arezzo". [citation needed]
Arabic Alphabet: Dal Ra Mim Fa Sad Lam Sin [citation needed]
The Muslims used the notation as early as the ninth century at the time of Al-Ma'mun (d.833) and Ishaq Al-Mausili (d.850). It can be found in the works of Al-Kindi (d.874), Yahia Ibn Ali Ibn Yahia (d.912), Al-Farabi (870-950), Ibn Sina (d.1037), Al-Hussain ibn Zaila (d.1048) and many others. Dominucus Gundissalinus (d.1151) used Arabic texts for his musical definitions. [citation needed]
It has been claimed that Guido d'Arezzo was the founder of what is now considered the standard music stave and notes. His revolutionary method, combining a 4 line stave with the first form of notes known as 'neumes', eventually paved the way to the five line stave which was introduced in the 14th century. Guido D'Arezzo's achievements were the beginning of the modern form of written music, music books and the modern concept of a composer.

Musical notation in ethnomusicology

I've done a first revision of this section, and will be calling on my Administrative helpers for support. (Unfortunately, the section was replete with misspellings, poor grammar, and unsubstantiated claims. It also seemed to expressed a bias.) Now, the first thing I will need is FEEDBACK from all users and editors! YOUR HELP IS NEEDED! Is anyone familiar with any form of musical notation in Africa? Or Java/Bali? Any references available for the North American examples?Prof.rick 12:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article overemphasizes western staff notation. I'm familiar with Japanese cursive notation for shakuhachi. I'm referring to notation that looks like this: [5] I'm likely to stub a main Shakuhachi notation article soon. We'll see if it gets legs. --Ds13 16:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The shakuhachi article has been created and can be found here: Shakuhachi musical notation. --Ds13 17:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sharps and Flats

There is no graphic representation of sharp or flat notes, which seems a pretty big omission —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.196.155 (talk)

Any better?

I've done a LOT of work on this Article tonight! I've tried to remove VERY LITTLE, and added a little more myself. Mainly, I've re-organized the Article, in the effort to create some sense of ORDER, and to (hopefully) have the "non-worldview" tag removed. (What can I say? Most of the world uses Western musical notation. I've downplayed it by dividing sections into sub-sections, and expanding on Ethnomusicology. But I still think section 4 is lengthy and excessive.) I hope the Administrators will see some improvements here. Prof.rick 08:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Forest or trees?

Quaver or eighth-note? Staff or stave? Include computer lingo? Are we ALL so caught up in the details we can't take a broad view of this article? I have re-organized it, to a considerable extent. Unfortunately, I cannot remove the western bias...the fact is, the European system of notation IS used in Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Americas...it deserves a "front seat". But how dare we ignore other systems of notation, or cultures who do not notate their music? I am next tempted to move Ethnomusical Notation to the top of the page! Also, I think most of Section 4 is redundant, repetitive of other articles, and not directly relevant. Can I have some opinions? Prof.rick 09:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-organization

I have tried to organized this jumbled article, by grouping all information on the History of western musical notation into one section. Also, all information regarding non-western music was placed under the section, "Musical notation of other cultures". A couple of sections have been re-titled, and minor corrections made to spelling and grammar. The result is now 3 main sections: 1. Western musical notation (historic & present-day), 2. Non-western musical notation, and 3. Other musical notation. (I hope this helps the article to get past that "non-global" tag!)

I've tried to preserve ALL information which already existed in this article, as well as adding to it.

If anyone has pictures of non-western musical notation, it would not only help to promote a "global image", but add interest and appeal to the article. Prof.rick 02:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thought: there should be a distinction made between native notation systems, such as in China and India, and notation systems devised by Western ethnomusicologists, such as for Indonesia and Africa. Also, a good chunk of the stuff in the non-Western section doesn't really have anything to do with notation, e.g.
In some cultures, glissandos (slides) between pitches are more significant than distinct pitches
Such music traditionally was not notated, but was an oral tradition.
The Inuit of North American and Siberia often use a 4-note scale (Soh, La, Do, Re) e.g. "We Have A Baby Daughter", which, traditionally, is not notated.
These pieces of information are valid, but they don't really belong in this article. Music theory, perhaps.
—Wahoofive (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Some good points. I had added the Inuit lullaby, simply to point out that some cultures do not notate their music. I will have to do more research on the other areas.
I like the idea of distinguishing between native notations and systems devised by Western ethnomusicologists. I didn't write most of those entries, and would like to do some research. If you are aware of any which are specifically western-created, perhaps you could add this to the article. Maybe native Chinese notation should be described in further detail (the use of Chinese characters).
Regarding the glissandos, again, I didn't write this one, and need to investigate Japanese notation.
Definitely, the fact that systems of notation for most African are Western-devised should be mentioned.
Thanks for mentioning all these points, and remember, nobody "owns" the article...so you are free to make edits as you see fit. I just think we have to careful to give non-Western perspectives fair attention. Will have more time to work on these myself tonight. Thanks. Prof.rick 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Further research suggests that even in India and China, there was no consistent notation system until very recently -- the historical examples are isolated attempts, and mostly alphabetical or text-based, like the ancient Greeks. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A useful image

Thanks, Wahoofive. The image you provided of Chinese character musical notation has added MUCH to this article! (In fact, I have spent the day pondering how I could express Chinese musical notation while my computer cannot create Chinese characters.) This move may indeed help to clear the page of the "non-worldwide" tag.

I am hoping you will be dedicated to this article, and make it an outstanding one! (As I first found it, it was a hodge-podge of unorganized, unrelated tid-bits, mostly unverifiable.) Since then, many have contributed much worthwhile information, which I have attempted to organize.

There is NO HURRY to bring this article to it's very best! Therefore, I think it would be worthwhile to enter discussion before making changes, unless well-founded. Your good judgment is much appreciated...in avoiding hasty deletions, and contributing both your thoughts and the fantastic image! Please bear with me, as I further investigate Gamelan notation, Japanese notation, etc., etc.

I have considered that, due to the length of the article, we might subdivide this into TWO articles: 1) Musical notation (Western), and 2) Musical notation (Non-western). What do you think? (We cannot escape the fact that western musical notation is predominant in most of the world.)

Another possibility is to subdivide "Musical notation of other cultures" into two distinct sub-sections: a) Native musical notation; b) The efforts of western musicologists to notate non-western music (or something to that effect).

I may not make any modifications to the article tonight...I need time for further research (as well as the humdrum and time-consuming necessities of life, such as earning a living!)

I also question several other aspects of the article:

1) Is there TOO MUCH emphasis on Western notation? At present, the article is perhaps TOO specific about western notation, perhaps too lengthy, including such "silly" terms as the English hemidemisemiquaver, and a rather lengthy section on percussion notation. (Maybe these could at least be thumb-nailed.)

2) Perhaps TOO MUCH EMPHASIS on "Other notation systems" including computer musical notation (no doubt separate articles exist on many of the items presented).

3) I find the Bach Fugue a WEAK example of western notation. It includes no dynamic markings, Italian terms, etc., and therefore expresses very limited aspects of western notation. It should also be a thumb-nail, to preserve space, if not replaced by a more inclusive example, perhaps from the Classical or Romantic Period.

4) There is a LACK of information on modern western notation, such as the angular note-beams which indicate accel. and rit.; palm and forearm clusters; unique key signatures (such as F#, G#, A# for one of the two whole-tone scales, and Db, Eb for the other). There are many other "modern" systems of western notation, not mentioned in the article.

I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on these matters! Cheers, Prof.rick 07:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Disagree on splitting into two articles on Western and non-Western, at least at this time. Agree that some information on Western notation, such as the symbol examples and the note value table, is too detailed.
Splitting was just a thought. Trimming some of the excess baggage from Western notation would do the trick, such as in the examples you named. Also, I thumbnailed the Bach Fugue...it used a lot space. Meanwhile I'll look for a Classical or Romantic example. (Thinking of Chopin's Prelude in A major, Op. 28, No. 7. The nice thing is, the whole piece can be neatly printed on just two lines, then thumb-nailed. If I can't find a public domain source, I'll write one with my music program, which will classify as public domain.) Any other ideas for a replacement for the Fugue? (We've already got some Bach on the page.)
2. Disagree about the inappropriateness of other notation systems, such as computer notation. This is an overview article. Some of these subsections, such as percussion notation, are too detailed.
I'm satisfied to keep the overview, including computer notation (although it is not intended to be read by human beings...that can turn into a long argument). I COMPLETELY agree that the percussion notation subsection is excessive.
3. Agree that the Bach fugue example isn't that helpful.
See above (Chopin Prelude). Thumb-nailed, of course. I don't think we need a "Listen to it" component. The file format used for the Bach Fugue audio, for example, has a file extension which may make it unplayable on some computers.
4. Maybe we need a separate article on avant-garde notation. Some of these items are mentioned in corresponding articles (e.g. Experimental music).
That's a good idea, but I think it should at least be mentioned in this article, if we are aiming for an overview. Links could lead to other appropriate pages.
—Wahoofive (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

After adding the names of the notes of the Slendro and Pelog scales of Java and Bali, and describing the pitches, I am now thinking that's excessive too...and possibly irrelevant. (I'll do more on this section tonight...again some links could supplement simple reference.) In this case, I can eliminate excessive comments on Japanese music. An image of Japanese music notation would be more useful, with condensed comments. I'm also thinking there is an excessive description of the music of India, much without relevance to notation. A picture is worth a thousand words. I am going to "think out" these areas tonight. Do you want to do something about the symbol examples, note-value table, and the percussion sub-section?

Regarding "avant-garde"...I don't think it should fall into one of the main sections on Western notation, but a simple reference (with links) in "Other Notation Systems". (In this case, "Western musical notation today" could be retitled "Western musical notation of the Common Practice Period", or something to this effect.) Prof.rick 05:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You want Chopin, try here [6]. I don't think a whole piece is necessary, just a representative sample. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The Bach Fugue

In the hopes of removing the "non worldwide view" tag attached to this article, I have taken the liberty to thumb and reposition the Bach Fugue Image, since it seemed to dominate the article, by space alone! Again, I am asking if anyone can provide further images of NON-WESTERN musical notation. We are a "global community", and Wikipedia must reflect this fact!!! (This is especially difficult in this article, since western musical notation now dominates most of the world.) Prof.rick 09:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Melismatic

What clown put the tag saying "melismatic" should be merged into this article? That's stupid. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This clown. I was wikilinking "dead-end" pages, where we try to further things along, and noticed that the Melisma article refers to "Melisma first appeared in written form...", but didn't see any mention of it in Musical notation and thought it might be a useful addition. There really isn't a tag for "some of this info might be included in ..." material, and I meant to clarify that on the talk page, but I guess I forgot. Feel free to remove the tag if melismatic notation has no place here; this isn't my area expertise (obviously). Sorry for the confusion, Askari Mark (Talk) 22:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for calling you a name. I agree that it should be described somewhere (contrasted with syllabic and neumatic), but this page isn't the right place. Plainsong might, and so might Musical texture. These items are defined in Neume. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken ... and thanks for the guidance. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is not the right place! I am presently working on a revision on Music of other cultures, and want to eliminate unnecessary or irrelevant material. This will take a few days of research, but should give us a cleaner, more pertinent page.

I like the image of Indian music! Prof.rick 10:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Image replacement

I replaced the Bach Fugue as an example of modern western notation, with a Chopin Prelude. Reasons: 1. We already have some Bach on this page, which should be kept diversified. 2. The Bach example was wonderful for showing notes on a staff, and time values, but completely lacked tempo indication, other Italian terms, dynamic marks, phrasing, accents, etc. 3. The Chopin Prelude is SHORT, so the entire piece can be shown. Prof.rick 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

helpme

I believe this page has been vandalized.

The vandal appears to be [Ocanter]". He has he undone a lot of hard work by myself and other editors (work on the article was yet incomplete). But it was approaching completion at the time of a useful reverting edit by [KFB]. This was the last "good version", from 23:28:21 Feb. 2007.

The work was incomplete, but progressing well. [Ocanter] totally messed it up! Is it possible to restore the version from the above-named time and date. (Then the serious editors can continue their work.)

A look at the Article's History page reveals some very inappropriate comments from [Ocanter], including attacks on myself, name-calling, inappropriate language, and apparently the removal of other person's comments from the Talk page.

Are there grounds to block [Ocanter} from this page, but from possible vandalism of other pages?

Your help is greatly appreciated...the article was progressing well, but much work still needs to be done, removing irrelevant and false information, and replacing it with information which is relevant and verifiable. Restoring the article to the above-named date/time would be most helpful.

And can [Ocanter] be stopped? Prof.rick 09:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold On!

I managed to revert it myself. Now I will post a warning. But can anything be done to stop this vandal, his abusive language, insults, racism, etc.?Prof.rick 10:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This looks to be a content dispute from the few edits I look at, not vandalism. Please do not label edits concerning a disagreement concerning the content of an article as vandalism. This is a collaborative project and no individuals owns an article and gets to dictate what is and isn't in the article. If there are disagreements, discuss the issues starting that discussion by labeling the others edits as vandalism is not constructive as an immediate assumption of bad faith --pgk 11:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

To Ocanter - Please see "To Ocanter" on the Talk Page.

Welcome to Wikipedia, Ocanter! The reason I reverted your edits is partly because you had removed relevant material...and added irrelevant, WITHOUT explanations left on the talk page. (Perhaps I shouldn't have called it vandalism...that gets rather technical.) (Don't panic...we can work at this, but let's DISCUSS each step before making major revisions.) This requires the imput of other editors, too.

One of the basic principles of wikipedia is "be nice". Now, please look at your summary comments on the article's talk page! I am NOT "Slick Rick". I am NOT "white-bashing". I am NOT offering any "pathetic apology", which you seem to characterize as a European trait (???)

You have referred to many issues in the article as "crap", and "in need of an enema", "short-sighted", etc. And in your edits you have expressed your own biases.

Can we shake hands and try to work this out together? Perhaps I can tell you WHY many changes were made in the article by agreement between myself and other editors.

Then, hopefully, through this TALK PAGE, we can reach some agreements, and arrive at a good article. Remember, this article is in a formative stage. It used to be a total disaster area. It still needs a lot of work.

What do you say? Prof.rick 12:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Rick,
I apologize for sounding so polemic and dismissive if your ideas.
I found your remarks extremely offensive. Western Europeans developed a system of musical notation that is brilliant. Just f-ing brilliant. It's one of our supreme achievements. Take a look at those cuneiform tablets, and take a look at the Chopin. Which one would you rather sightright on stage? Western musical notation shows you exactly how to play it and nail it. It tells you how loud, how fast, how much attack. Granted, there are issues of performance practice that must be supplemented by research, but our method allows the composer infinite expression on the page, and it gives the performer a solid basis for understanding the composer's intent. Without our method, all the wonderful polyphony in Western European classical music would have been impossible. The singers would never be able to coordinate all those voices. A Palestrina cannon? Forget it. Sure, Bach and SL Weiss were able to improvise their own polyphonic music, but that's because the methods were already developed on paper. And if other composers didn't have their scores to study, all their brilliance would have been forgotten. That's why our great cultural achievement deserves some respect, respect it wasn't getting.
Please show me what information you think I removed. All I saw was a bunch of stuff about how African music is so intricate and advanced they can't notate it and about how the Javanese have "enjoyed" an independent music notation. Gee, does that sound biased at all? If you know so much about African music, why don't you contribute to the page on African music? Telling us that it is just so wonderful it can't be notated is insulting and biased. Of course there are elements that aren't usually notated in our system, just as there are elements of our pop music that are not notated in our system. That doesn't mean their music is intricate. Palestrina is intricate. African music can also be intricate. Intricacy does not prevent notation. Instead of telling how wonderful African music is, why don't you add some recordings of it to another page that covers African music, or that covers non-notated music. Maybe you can chew on this a while, I don't know. I notice you put the Berklee spam back in. Do you teach there?
If the American Indians have no notation system, do they really deserve a heading on the page dedicated to musical notation? This page is about musical notation, not about cultures that have no musical notation. If the Eskimos have no musical notation, the fact that they sing with a four-note scale does not belong here. It should go on a page covering Eskimo music, or even covering music that is not notated.
Welcome to wp yourself. I've been here a while, and I've honestly never seen an edit as biased as yours. You seem to actually have some information, so I'm hoping you can contribute some of it without being so biased and disrespectful.
I picked on your name because I thought calling yourself a professor on wp is kind of pointless and pompous. But I apologize for that too. If you really are a professor, I feel sorry for your students, though.
Ocanter 14:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Ocanter

Thanks for replying to my message. You have made some valid arguements...and that's a good starting point. Now, I'll make a few.

First, some of the material you seem to think I put in this article was not mine! (If you saw this article about 6 months ago, you'd agree...it was a disaster area.) Second, remember that this is a work-in-progress. (My next intention was to edit out a lot of the material. I haven't really looked at Japan and Java-Bali yet. I admit, I had thrown in some excessive information, such as the names of the scale. But knowing that the Slendro scale, based on 5-edo (equal divisions of the octave), and the Pelog (based on 9-edo) is information necessary to conclude that these systems cannot be accurately notated in Western notation.

Sorry if I falsely accused you of adding anything that wasn't yours. It really wasn't all bad, and I tried to leave as much as I could bear to read. The information is good, and your knowledge of Southeast Asian music is obviously based on some real study of it. I thought the information on the Javan scales was helpful. But I disagree with your interpretation that this means they cannot be accurately notated in Western notation. Western notation has evolved over centuries to accomodate different tunings, and there's no reason you couldn't adapt the staff to the notate Javan music. I assume you're talking about Gamelon again, right? You could do it all on a percussion staff, with a note indicating the tuning of each bell or whatever they use. Our system would actually work great for it. Of course, it takes some fenagling, but that's the strength of our system--it's extensible. I never really realized this until a Korean conductor explained it to me. If you're a composer yourself, you must be familiar with notational systems like Penderecki's and Crumbs. They invent new symbols and put them right on the staff, with a note at the beginning of the score for the performer. Granted, you might not count that as "standard," but it's still Western musical notation, and as those pieces become more canonical, more and more performers are learning to read them at sight. Ocanter 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Next, I was getting tired of seeing that tag at the top of the page, that "page may not represent a wordwide view", and was making an effort NOT to downplay Western notation, but to give more attention to non-Western systems. (I agree with much of what you say about the values of the Western system. But I feel you have a biased opinion!) First, it is NOT capable of notating every musical possibility. For example, we give only general guidelines regarding dynamics. Can you picture a score with an EXACT volume level indicated for EVERY note? Second, our system of time-values is purely mathematical. Some music requires great freedom of time, such as the rubato of Chopin, or the chanting (to the natural rhythm of speech) used in some religions). Often, piano pedalling can become so complex, it would be impossible to notate. So, of the three basic variables (TIME, PITCH, and VOLUME) the Western notation system can accurately only convey PITCH with complete accuracy...and that is assuming we are restricting ourselves to 12 fixed pitches per octave. It can be quite accurate in conveying TIME in some, but all Western music.

You actually can write the exact volume. And because of our Western European tradition of science, we can actually describe the exact volume, in terms of decibels. True, most composers do not do that. But that's mainly because they want the performer to have some freedom. Some of the hardcore serialists serialize dynamics. Mostly that sort of thing is regarded as pedantic and unmusical, though, so you don't usually see it, but our system does support it. As for rubato, gee, that's tough. You have to write the word "rubato" above the staff. Take a look at Penderecki's Hiroshima if you want to see exact time notation. Your criticism of the system isn't exactly fair. It's not that the system doesn't support it, but rather that composers usually prefer to leave those things to the performer. Ocanter 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Another difficulty in Western notation is the use of various clefs. (Imagine how much EASIER it would be to read piano music if the notes of the Treble and Bass Clefs represented the same set of notes, obviously in a different octave.) Also, there is much to be said for chromatic staves, totally eliminating the need for accidentals. (Each line and each space represents one of the twelve notes of the octave.)

The chromatic staves are also Western! Ocanter 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It IS a very good system, but not a perfect one. (I don't believe I ever said anything to knock the Western system in the article.)

You implied that our music was inferior, and therfore more susceptible to notation. You said that African music had such "intricate counterpoint" it couldn't be notated. But classical music can be notated, so that must mean it less less complex counterpoint, right? Wrong. Ocanter 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding counterpoint...I know organists who can improvise complex fugues. No notation is needed. Also keep in mind that virtually all the "great" composers were great improvisors. Many of their greatest works stem from improvisation. Also consider the number of excellent jazz ensembles who always improvise. I have also heard one African tribe who sing spontaneously in 3 or 4-part counterpoint of great complexity, and in rhythms which defy Western notation.

Please don't say that African rhythms "defy Western notation." It's just another way of saying they are better than we. That's really what I found insulting about your post. If it's a rhythm, it can be notated in our system.
Organists can improvise fugues. Bach and Weiss used to improvise that stuff together. But without the system of notation that started at the Notre Dame school, the establishment of the systematic method of counterpoint harmony those cats perfected would never have developed to that level. That's all I was saying. In early Western European music, there was polyphony, and some of it was written down, but without the systematic documentation, it could never have developed as a standardized art form the way it did. That's what I was getting at. Now in early jazz, there was a fair amount of polyphony, but again, the imitation was not as developed as, say, it was in Bach's music. Modern jazz doesn't really have much harmonic polyphony. Not that it's not great music. But again, even that is based on a long tradition of notated music, at least on the "European side." Ocanter 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we see Western notation from very different perspectives. You seem to regard the score as the ultimate, and seem to believe that simply following the score literally will lead to an ideal performance. I tend to think that the printed score is only a blueprint, or a guide, hopelessly inadequate in conveying every detail of a composer's intentions. Also, you seem to assume that Western notation somehow led to the evolution of Western music. I think our music would have evolved similarly under any notation system, and perhaps without any!

Actually, I think following the score literally usually leads to a boring performance. I always improvise, as far as my understanding of period practice allows. I'm all for it. Especially for baroque music, yeah, it's a blueprint. But I do definitely believe that the development of a harmonic language that is understood all over the world would have been impossible without notation. Maybe today, with recordings, it would be possible. But look at the way various composers have revived Bach's music. Without the scores, that would have been impossible. That goes without saying. Do you think Mozart could have written the Kyrie to the Requiem the way he did if he didn't have baroque scores to study? Notation was extremely important in shaping the course of Western music. Ocanter 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Western system is the "best we've got", but it is certainly not perfect. It has obviously gained near-worldwide acceptance, as the world's taste for Western music has expanded.

I also believe it is necessary to stress, in the article, that some cultures have come up with some very beautiful (and sometimes very complex) musical without any system of notation. Otherwise, we are presenting a false view, that the best music is always notated. What about spontanaiety? What about the freedom to make music from the heart, with the freedom to change from day to day?

It's great. Ocanter 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I should mention that I am a composer. Often I find myself with (what I consider) an excellent musical idea, then struggle to find the nearest way to "approximate" it, using Western notation.

As long as non-Western music is pushed to the bottom of the page, and downplayed, that tag isn't going to go away!

Dude, the very first thing is cuneiform. That's about as non-Western as it gets. I took it out of the "Western" section myself, along with the Ancient Greek notation. Western notation comes third, because that's the chronological order. Ocanter 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to talk over the above matters before making further edits. Also, perhaps we should be prepared to "revert" and "revert back", for the sake of comparing the article, before and after your revisions. Also, we need the imput of more editors.

Waiting to hear your comments.

Note: You might not like my user-name, but at least I have one, and wish you would "sign in" too. Prof.rick 05:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A Starting Point

Perhaps we should take a "cooling down" period for a week or so, before addressing the article. Let me know if you agree. Prof.rick 05:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to interlace my comments above. Sorry for the previous polemics. Ocanter 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No!

You have subjuctated the work and research of many editors. I feel it is your responsibility to justify YOUR edits...not simply change ours! And please, talk on the Discussion Page...it is is the only open and thorough means of dealing with conflicts. Prof.rick 23:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Octaner (or whatever you unregistered name is)

Please stop reverting. Read my comments on the Talk Page. THANK YOU. Prof.rick 00:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Though I think his initial comments about his reasoning were quite rude, I agree with most of the content of Ocanter's edits.
The cuneiform and ancient greek parts do not belong under the history of western music notation. Neither system is directly related to modern western music notation.
If a culture does not notate its music, it shouldn't be mentioned in this article. Start another article or find one that it's relevant to and put it there (maybe Improvised music?). Furthermore, wikipedia isn't the place for speculation. Statements like "no doubt some form of notation would have accompanied such theory", or the comments about African music being too intricate to notate just aren't verifiable.
Have you reviewed the content of Ocanter's edits, or is your revision based only on his rude arguments? I think you're blocking some legitimate improvements to the article.
Also, please don't start a new talk page heading if we are still having the same discussion as before. If the topic of discussion hasn't changed, new headings only make the discussion harder to follow. - Rainwarrior 00:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Please, Octaner (or whatever your unregistered name may be)

It's ocanter, and I am a registered user. I like "octaner," though. Sounds tough. Ocanter 13:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I had reverted this article again, and re-written the Lead, in the hope of satisfying both your goals and mine. I think you would have liked the results. But an "edit conclflict" occurred, as I attempted to post the change, and to make note of it on the Talk Page. This was intended ONLY as an example of how we might work together...not as a permanent revision of the article. It was intended for discussion, imput from other editors, and eventual agreement (obviously subject to change).

Leads should be one or two brief paragraphs, indicate the nature of the article, and intice the reader to read on! Your lead did not do so! I will attempt to re-post my new lead tomorrow, with the intended invitation that we DISCUSS it!!! (This is intended only as as an example of how we might work together...nothing final.)Prof.rick 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Your longer lead didn't offer any additional verifiable information about musical notation, which is why he removed it. I thought its content was strange and irrelevant, and while the short lead that is there now isn't as explanatory as I'd like, it's better than whimsical comments about illiterate-songwriters and capturing the human spirit that don't elucidate the subject at all. - Rainwarrior 00:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ocanter, PLEASE!

I have reverted this page again, because you, alone, upset the hard work of a number of other editors. We COMMUNICATE on the talk page. We are REGISTERED editors. Please, don't destroy our hard work.

Tonight, I tried to rewrite the Lead. (See Wikipedia guidelines on leads.) But my work was cancelled out by your re-revert action, causing an editorial conflict. (I only wanted to present an example of how we we could work together, presenting both your views and mine...open to discussion and revision.)

Again, I'll ask, PLEASE, LET'S LEAVE IT FOR A WEEK. THIS IS ONLY FAIR TO A NUMBER OF EDITORS, WHO HAVE DEBATED MANY MATTERS AT LENGTH, AND ARRIVED AT AGREEMENTS.

Although your intentions may be most noble, they do not reflect a consensus. In fact, they have "undone" the consensus of others.

Just One Request: LEAVE IT FOR A WEEK!!! 00:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And from here?

OK, so Rainwarrior took your side, Ocanter. (Odd, I have worked on articles with him, and we have had no major conflicts. Because we DISCUSS on the talk page!) However, if he studied the history of this article throughly, he might change his mind.

I have made a few MINOR edits, such as a little redefining and regrouping of sections. However, I do NOT feel the Bach image should come first! Why not present musical notation in chronological order? Also, why should non-western music be placed near the end of the article? (Actually, it doesn't bother me so much, now the "non-global" tag gas been removed.) I also changed your paragraph about polyphony being dependent upon Western musical notation. (Such nonsense!) I tried to conclude with a BALANCED view.

Remember, nobody "owns" an article...therefore there is no "right" place for the Bach image, unless by consensus.

(By the way, I am white, but I am disgusted by whites who discriminate against those whose skin is a different colour.) Believe me, it has NOTHING to do with intelligence, let alone musicality! (I have taught ALL kinds!.)

Did YOU remove the tag concerning "a nonglobal view"? I thought only Administators could do that.

I guess there are still a thousand little details to be worked out yet. Tonight, I started a re-write of the section on Chinese music. (Yes, their "theory" existed 8,000 years ago,,according to one source, but the only proof of their actual notation goes back only about 2500 years, according to most sources.) As I said, this whole article needs some major work yet.

Now that you un-reverted my revert, do you feel better? (Of course, you'll have to account for every one of your edits...not just to me, but to other editors. Now let's be civil, and aim for the common goal on an excellent article. Prof.rick 05:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in some ways it's more messy than before, but I guess the most offensive stuff is gone. I agree with Rainwarrior, though, that information about music that is not notated should not go in this article. The eskimos use scales? I would have assumed they did. Their melodies are beautiful? I'm sure they are.
Dude, if you can find Chinese musical notation going back 2500 years, you had better publish it in a major musicology journal. The Chinese bell inscriptions do not necessarily indicate a system of musical notation (Pang, others). Just because you have note-names does not mean you have a notational system. Actually, the Chinese writing system is ideally suited to a system like the Greek system, in which a symbol indicates a scale degree. It would have been easy, with their writing system, for them to have developed such a system. But without an actual melody, you're just stretching (hoping?). Chinese sources for melodies date to the Tang dynasty, circa 800 AD (Pang, see my contribution to the Epitaph of Seikilos). What's more, they are not musical "notation" exactly, but prose discriptions of how to play a certain melody--put your first finger here, pluck this string, etc.. If they had a notation system, why wouldn't they have used it when they wrote down those melodies? No one is claiming that any Chinese wrote down music before 800 AD, and even then, there was no standard "notation," but simply elaborate prose to convey simple ritual melodies. But if you find something real, not conjectural, please let the world know. Please also keep in mind that there is tremendous chauvinism in oriental musicology, and people will always be making claims for the extreme age of Chinese music notation, Indian math, finding pi in the Vedas, etc., etc. Please provide primary sources or detailed analysis of secondary sources for any such claim.
I didn't say that polyphony in general depended on notation. I said that the specific form of polyphony that developed into, say, Palestrina's music would have been impossible without notation. I mentioned Mozart's use of contrapuntal techniques that clearly belong to a previous era. Also, there is a difference between the technical meaning of polyphony and the literal meaning of "singing two or more notes at the same time." Your final section is worse than ever, but I will leave it for now. You seem to be essentially inserting more apologetic material, trying to say, "even though we have an article on musical notation, it doesn't mean we're ethnocentric, or that notated music is better than non-notated music; in some ways, it's worse!" This is unnecessary and insulting.
I put the Bach prelude back at the top because 1) it's beautiful, and 2) it is a perfect example of the material users are most likely to be coming to the article to find. As soon as the user sees it, he knows he's at least in the right place. If he sees a messed-up chunk of cuneiform, he's probably going to be confused. As the history section actually comes later, I wouldn't say it's actually out of chronological order. It just accompanies the header and index rather than the history section. I would appreciate, however, someone adding a graphic of the cuneiform, if anyone has one. I could only find some grainy images on the web.
I removed the "global view" tag when I saw that there were now sections on Chinese, Javan, Indian, Greek, and Mesopotamian notation systems, and of course your material on non-notated music, which I still feel is apologetic and superfluous. I don't how much more "global" it can get, really. I don't think you can have a "global view" tag at the top when every single system, throughout the globe, has been covered. I wish someone would add some more actual information about the non-Western systems, though, sans apologies.
I offer my own apologies for being so insulting in my previous change logs. I was offended by some of the content, whether it was originally yours or somebody else's. I'll try to be more helpful and less mean. Ocanter 13:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I have one more real complaint. I will bring it up on the talk page before I revert again, though. Under "other systems," you (by your last edit) have placed a couple dozen Western techniques alongside two non-Western techniques and changed the title from "other Western systems" to "other systems." This effectively removes from the Western topic a vast field of techniques developed in the last century or so, specifically to meet the alleged deficiencies you mentioned. These belong under the Western musical notation system, because they grew out of that system, and they are in fact part of standard Western musical notation. Percussion notation is standard Western musical notation. It is not some "other" system. You are effectively depriving the Western system of many of its most important developments, then turning around and saying it's not sufficient for notating Gamelon music. Of course it's not, if you take away the percussion staff! At the same time, you are depriving the Chinese heading of the information on tablature and integer systems. If someone just clicked on the "Chinese" heading, he would not know that those systems exist in China. Ocanter 13:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed my mind and moved the Western stuff to Western and the Chinese stuff to China. I think that is a big improvement, so I'm making the edit. Does anyone else have feelings on this? I left MIDI, etc., in "computer music," although technically the standard is Western (American) also. I felt in that case it made more sense to class it separately from the culture, because the musician using it doesn't usually deal with the code directly. I moved it down below "other cultures"; it fits the chronological order better there anyway. Ocanter 14:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is actually shaping up. Thanks for the link to Bagley's lecture. If you find any actual notated music from that early period, I would be happy to move China up near the Ancient Greek heading. Ocanter 22:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding edit, removing "They do not, however, contain any notated music." I don't think we have to find an actual notated composition. The point is, a written nomenclature was used to denote music pitches...and that in itself is a form of Musical Notation. (The article is not necessarily about "notated compositions", but about the representation of musical sounds through written symbols. Otherwise, the sub-sections WHO KNOWS if they used this pitch-notation system to notate melodies??? But I would assume these symbols would at least be used in the study of music theory.) Of course, the fact that these particular inscriptions do not notate specific compositions in NO WAY proves that the symbols were NOT used for this purpose.
I also agree the article is "shaping up", but I will have more to add on the musical notation of other cultures. Some of your edits have been very good. By the way, I don't know who wrote that final section. However, the "citations" are clear...look at the Reference Section. Only the last statement is silly. ("Notational centricity.....or perhaps the music is an ideal form.") Is the author referring to music, which is heard, or to the written score? And I'm afraid I find myself agreeing with you on some points: I DON'T LIKE the title of the last section...the very word "criticism" comes across almost as an insult to notated music. "Comments" might be more fitting. Prof.rick 04:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I slightly reworded the lead. I didn't like "any system for writing music" for two reasons. First, the word "music" should not be used in a definition of a term using the word "musical" (It's like saying "a lawn mower is a device used for mowing lawns", or "a wertyu is a musical instrument used for playing wertyu music". Second, I don't like the term "writing music". Music is SOUND. We cannot write sounds...only symbols to represent them.

I also didn't like "Different systems...different cultures". First, it's an unnecessarily repetitive use of word "different". It could also possibly suggest "different from our own" (and of course, we want our own to be included!).

Also, the lead still seems too short, more like a dictionary definition. It should be a little longer, giving some idea of the content of the article. It should also be interesting enough that the reader will want to read on! Any comments? Prof.rick 05:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision of Section 7

(Formerly "Criticisms"...now "Perspectives")

I have re-written this section, endeavouring to make it less biased. It had appeared to be an outright declaration of the flaws of Western musical notation. While it made some valid points, which I have tried to retain where justified, I hope I have opened the door to an open-minded view of the validity of Western notation. I have refrained from expressing my personal views, but made references to the views of prominent music theorists, musicologists, performers and composers. The goal has been to enrich perspectives regarding musical notation as a significant aspect of the art of music.

The "citation tags" have been removed, where the Reference section provides substantiation. I have also simply eliminated some claims which could not be substantiated.

The most important change is in the title...hopefully, no longer biased.

This section has led to a great deal of definition conflicts. For example, suppose a jazz ensemble improvises. Their music is thus NOT notated. However, if it is digitally recorded, it is, in a sense notated (if computer language can be seen as a form of musical notation).

Most important, I have aimed at clarifying the role of notated music...more or less a "blueprint", into which the performer must "breathe life". A literal score-reading is NOT a musical one...in fact, one world-renowned concert pianist Karl Ulrich Schnabel once told me that ALL music should sound like it is being improvized. But in fact, when I study a score, I am fanatically loyal to the composer's intentions...but in a "partership", with the composer as the "senior member".

If anyone feels DISCUSSION of these revisions is needed, please, go ahead! (If we want a "great" article, this is how it's done!)

Note to Ocanter: Progress, I think! We can argue all we want...that's good. But personal insults won't accomplish anything! Prof.rick 08:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Ocanter! I LIKE the new position of Computer Notation in the article. It is certainly a unique topic, worthy of it's own section...and similarly should be ranked near the end of the Article. But is it mainly American??? But I am wondering if "Other Cultures" should rank before it. Prof.rick 08:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The "perspectives" you added are useful, I think, but they are still extremely one sided. I don't know if I have the patience to research the other side, basically the point of view I was advocating, that notation has facilitated development of compositional techniques in Western music. But it seems like your comments are still just "criticism." I don't think it's our job to "clarify the role of notated music" for wp users. But as a matter of fact, I agree with Schnabel's observations. A good performer never simply reads the score.
I re-added the sentence you objected to regarding the Chinese bells. It's important to know that. You may think there is no important difference between theoretical nomenclature and a notational system. I think we should give users all the information, and let them decide for themselves. Ocanter 13:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This gets quite debatable. What do we mean by "musical notation"? If symbols exist to express musical sounds, I argue that this IS a form of musical notation. Obviously, you disagree. So why should you restore that sentence on the Chinese bells? The nomenclature is not JUST theoretical...it defines the actual pitch of the bells (SOUNDS).

Also, I think your changing back the Lead to the "different...different" detracts from the article. In any case, I am growing a little tired of having so many of my efforts not only removed, but of the accusation that I have i biased view. I am trying to be OBJECTIVE and UNBIASED, but I have found your views to be quite biased. Therefore, there is no longer any reason to continue my work on this Article. (Insults have not helped the issue, either.) Prof.rick 15:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

By "musical notation" we mean a system of notating music. "Symbols to express musical sounds" do not necessarily indicate a system of notating music. For example, the African musicians you mentioned must have names for the different strings of their stringed instruments, different names for the different drum sounds, etc. And if they know how to write, they could write those names down. And what better place to write them down, then write on the instrument, showing the correct pitch to which each string should be tuned. By your definition, then, they must also have a "system of musical notation," because they could always just write these names on paper in the order they are supposed to be played. But you yourself said that they didn't have one, because their music "defies notation in any system." In other words, they have the theoretical understanding of music necessary to come up with a notation system, but they do not actually use a notation system, because their musical tradition, which must be founded in their own beliefs and asthetics, does not favor notation. I think this was the case with the Chinese music you are describing. How about this: "The site did not contain any notated music, but the inscriptions imply that the music theory was sufficiently advanced to allow for musical notation." Also, you should dig a little deeper into the literature if you're going to make a claim like this. That website is fine, but there is a lot more literature on the subject that would make a better source, and probably back up your opinion better. Here's a citation somebody gave me recently. This guy is getting cited a lot lately, and he's very pro-China.

Chen, Cheng-Yih. Jump to call number/location/availability ISBN: 962209385X Author: Chen, Cheng-Yih. Title: Early Chinese work in natural science : a re-examination of the physics of motion, acoustics, astronomy and scientific thoughts / Chen Cheng-Yih. Imprint: Hong Kong : Hong Kong University Press, c1996. Physical Description: xxxiii, 264 p. : ill. ; 25 cm. Notes: Includes bibliographical references and index. Subject (LC): Physics--History--China.

Ocanter 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I slightly changed the wording of the "sentence in question" again. What do you mean by "site"? The website, or the site where these instruments were found? These people did not just have names for notes! The used a solmization system (which is similar to Solfege). Also, the use of the word "theory" is a little different in Chinese musical contexts. (It has little to do with systems of notation, or the ability to notate music, but has more to do with systems regarding tuning, the structuring of scale-pitches, and {unfortunately) was inseparably linked to their Philosophy. Of course, they COULD have used these note-names to write out a melody...but I am not claiming they did so. We DO NOT KNOW! Therefore, we should not make assumptions, or include sentences which imply that they never notated melodies. However, it seems rather evident that such a crude system would not notate time values. So, because of the ambiguity of the words "site" and "theory" I slightly reworded the sentence.
Notated music, or notated musical sounds? It depends largely on your definition of music! To notate even a simple diatonic scale is to notate music. A composition is not necessary. I am therefore considering changing back the lead. Is a scale not music?
Africa is a continent, not a country. It's music is very varied. Some consists of nothing more than simple pentatonic tunes. Some is very elaborate, such as the counterpoint I referred to the other day. (Yes, they sang INDEPENDENT melodies, with INDEPENDENT rhythms...not just "two notes at once".) Most of Africa had no written language of any kind...not even to represent speech. So it is highly unlike the would WRITE the names of strings, etc., on their musical instruments!
Music-making is so much an instinctive act, often "principles of theory" are employed without a direct knowledge of theory per se. Therefore, we must separate "knowledge of theory" from any efforts to represent musical sounds through written symbols.
I don't know why you restored the final sentence of section seven...it just doesn't make sense. (If you add an adjective to final use of the word "music", it might. (E.g. "notated" music.) Music is an AURAL experience, but the use of the word here seems to mean "printed score". (Then let's say so.)
It occurred to me, if we take a broader view of the article, then we are not talking about just notated music, but ANY system of expressing musical concepts through unheard means. (E.g. Braille is reference by the sense of touch; solfege can be a reference through hand signals.) And computer "musical language" is nothing more than a series of "on" and "off" electrical signals! Prof.rick 02:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thought: In the lead, we have used the general term, "music", without specifying musical sounds or musical compositions. And I think that's great! But perhaps we could use at least one qualify word, to indicate that "music" is sound...not paper! (E.g. "the sounds of music". Prof.rick 02:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Order of nonstandard notations

Is there any method to the order of the subsections under "other Western Musical Notation Systems"? I moved "Lead sheet" to right under "Figured bass" since they seem similar to me, but in general those sections seem pretty arbitrary. It seems to me that more commonly-used systems such as Solfege and Letter names should go higher up than obscure systems like chromatic staves. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back, Wahoofive. Please stick around...your help is needed! (By the way, your above edit was excellent. I have not studied this section thoroughly, and it probably needs some cleanup.) Please give your opinions on these matters:
Lead: Do you prefer (1) the present lead, OR (2) "Music notation, or musical notation refers to any system which represents musical sounds through the use of written symbols. Diverse systems of musical notation have developed in various cultures." OR (3) Your own version (???)
Section on Chinese Music: We know these instruments had inscriptions which gave the names of the pitches they sounded. Two systems of nomenclature existed: one for relative pitch, and one for absolute pitch. A system of solmization was used. I consider this a form of musical notation, while Ocanter seems to feel it is NOT, unless actual notated compositions were found. (Hence his statement, "although no notated compositions were found"....) I don't think this sentence is necessary. The fact that they had written names for the notes of the scale must certainly be regarded as a form of musical notation. Although we have reached a reasonable compromise, your imput would be appreciated.
I still don't like "Music of Other Cultures" taking such a "low" position in the article, and would rather see it earlier in the article. Any feelings on this one? I noticed that "Percussion" has been made a subsection of "Other Western Systems..." (section 4). My suggestion: Make Percussion a sub-section of Section 3 (Western notation), make "Other Cultures" Section 4, and REMOVE the word "western" from "Other Music Notation Systems", making it Section 5. Please, think this one over carefully!
Your opinions on the above matters would be a great help. And no doubt there will be other issues which require at least 3 opinions to arrive at a concensus.
Also, please check to see that Ocanter has not removed any of your important contributions. (As you can see, the article has changed a lot!) Thanks, Prof.rick 07:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Tried to make the moves you suggested. Prof.rick 07:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ocanter that musical compositions must be notated to constitute musical notation. A scale is not music. We describe pitches using frequency, in Hertz, or intervals in cents, but no one would call that music notation. Rather, it's music theory. ("integer notation" is similarly suspect.) I support keeping the references to Chinese notation in the article, but it does belong lower down on the page, since there's no question that Western music notation has been much more thoroughly developed, and anyway has in the past century spread worldwide. However, perhaps "musical notation of other cultures" could go above "other musical notation systems". How many of the items in "other musical notation systems" really apply to non-Western music? —Wahoofive (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Concensus wins! The early Chinese notation is not music, but belongs in the article. Also, by concensus, I have moved "other cultures" to a position above "other notations". Not sure where China should belong...certainly above Java & Bali, and Japan, who essentially borrowed their systems from the Chinese. Above Byzantine and Greek? That section is so short, and has so little to say, I can't see moving to a higher position. Prof.rick 04:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good work! I still think "integer notation" should go away, though, since it's a theoretical concept and not a notation system. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleaner sentence structures

The lastest edit, by 66.92.173.250, was well-conceived and well-presented. Prof.rick 04:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

5-line staff

With regard to this passage:

The modern system of a universal standard 5-line staff was first adopted in France, and became widely used by the 16th century

the implication is that as the 16th century began, a wide variety of staves were used, and the 5-line version had not become dominant. Is this really true? I've never seen any manuscript facsimiles or printed music (such as Odhecaton) with staves other than five lines, except occasional examples of lute or organ music with more (and chant with less). Are we saying that Ockeghem and Dufay didn't have a standardized 5-line staff? —Wahoofive (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Throughout the 12/13/14th centuries, the 4 line staff is very common, but a 5th line is frequently added, sometimes just for one line of the music. There are plenty of examples of 5 line staves too though from the same time, though. I'm not sure offhand when 5 becomes "standard" (it's not like the change is sudden), but the invention of printed music pretty much solidifies it. - Rainwarrior 18:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll edit the sentence for clarity. It's pretty pompous at the moment (the words "modern system of a universal standard" could be deleted without further ado). —Wahoofive (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
By "printed" I assume you mean "printed with moveable type". —Wahoofive (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Phoenician inscription?

Wahoo, that is far out, if it's true. The fact that there is no scholarly source is pretty suspicious, though. Can you please find a real journal article on it or something? I notice I'm actually the only one who has added any sources for the ancient near eastern transcriptions, even though I'm only substantiating other people's claims. It would be great if the users who post these claims would find a real citation. I clicked on all three links from that website paragraph, and there was nothing about the inscription at all, let alone a scholarly source making a real case for the claim you posted. If you can find one, please post it. I would be very excited to hear about that. Ocanter 18:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought of dolmetschonline as a reliable (secondary) source, but I have to agree their documentation is pretty thin on this one. Leave it out unless we get something more solid. —Wahoofive (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation format

I've seen nonstandard citations in this article, in the (Last name of author, Year of publication) form (like (Coco, 1994)). I'm adding a customized error to the top of the page until I find the right error, and then wait until this is fixed. - PGSONIC 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Colour notation?

WHY have an image on "colour notation", when colours are not shown? The verbal presentation is excellent, but why add an image which fails to produce the colours? Prof.rick 01:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the article on Modern Musical Notation?

I think the content and focus of this article is excellent -- it covers musical notations systems throughout the world and throughout history as it should.

However, I do think that there should be a article introducing the structure of modern musical notation in some detail, that this article would link to at the appropriate spot. The article I have in mind could use the material from sheet music, either link to or subsume the Modern musical symbols page and link to all the articles listed in the "musical notation" Category. Does anyone else who's been working on this page for awhile think this is a good idea?

Also, I think there should be a section heading "Modern Musical Notation" just above the paragraph on Guido. It seems funny to introduce the most pervasive form musical notation in the world in the middle of a section ostensively about something else. Agree?

I think the "Modern Musical Symbols" section could be scrapped and certainly should be scrapped if the article I'm suggesting is added. The same goes for "Percussion Notation," "lead sheet," and "figured bass" sections, as these are all branches of the modern system.

CharlesGillingham 12:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to start an article explaining all of music notation and how to do it, be my guest, but that's a textbook-length topic, so don't plan to incorporate a lot of other articles. Once that article is in place we could consider putting a link to it from the intro paragraph or somewhere else near the top. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
13-June-2007: Good points. I added hat-note "Also see: Modern musical symbols" --which is a common-sense level of detail about the 5-line staff, plus clefs/notes/rests, etc. WP does have a growing problem of "How many wikis does it take to change a lightbulb (?), after reading articles on making glass, refining tungsten, etc." A similar problem occurred in the article about French "Legion of Honor" which had launched into the indepth history of Napoleonic France, before identifying the 5 degree-levels of various Legion medals as Chevalier (Knight), Commandeur, Grand-Croix, etc. Thanks for focusing on the typical usability of WP articles, along with universal detailed coverage. -Wikid77 18:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Java and Bali

I rewrote this section, removing two paragraphs explaining slendro and pelog that didnt seem to bear directly on notation as such. It would be very nice to have images, and also imput from someone up on Bali! Sparafucil 00:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Rearrangement

I have tried to improve the structure of this article. I had a couple of goals in mind.

  1. Give modern musical notation it's own heading (it was oddly buried -- see my comments above)
  2. Make some kind of link to Sheet music (which has "entry level" information about modern musical notation)
  3. Put together all the notations that are essentially western into a compact list
  4. Remove the western-centric heading "Musical notation of other cultures" and raise these up to the top level

I hope this looks a little better to everybody. I haven't changed any content at this point -- this is all the same language that was already here, just under slightly different headings.

I believe that, with these changes, the page no longer has to be checked for NPOV. (I can't imagine in what sense it's not neutral -- modern music notation has it's place, and so does the music notation of other cultures). If no one has any objections, I'd like to remove the POV-check tag. --CharlesGillingham 10:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag was added 19 March 2007 with claim that no western systems are represented. Obviously no longer the case, so I've removed tag. RichardJ Christie 01:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
ExcellentCharlesGillingham 08:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Lute suite manuscript.

I believe the picture of score for the 3rd Lute suite is in Anna Magdalena Bach's hand, not JS's. I'll do some research to confirm or not. RichardJ Christie 01:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi RichardJ Christie! The source was definitly written by JS Bach. You can tell (among other things) from the time signature where the upper leg of the "C" is bending upwards. I also double checked with the BWV. All the best, Matthias Röder 10:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Matthias, I've the manuscript as a scrolling decoration all along my home's front hallway, I'm glad to now know that it's the old man's hand! I can't recall who told me otherwise. RichardJ Christie 11:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, great! Best of luck! Matthias Röder 12:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Musical_notation/Archive_1&oldid=1171641974"