Jump to content

Talk:Musical note/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Symbols for sharps/flats

31-May-2007: Over the past 2 years, the unprintable sharp/flat unicodes have been reverted in articles to use simple # / b; however, superscripted codes seem more accurate and universal. For more precise coding, that shows on most PC screens, use superscripts:

  • For flats (b), use "<sup>b</sup>"
  • For sharp (#), use "<sup>#</sup>"
  • Double-sharp, use "<sup>##</sup>"
  • Double-flats, use "<sup>bb</sup>"

Results: F#, C#, Bb, Eb, C# #, Gb b. The tiny superscript codes run together, so for double-sharps, put a space between the two pound-signs ("# #"). In general, the simple "# / b" characters are close enough, such as F# or Bb, especially considering the tedious coding of superscript expressions. However, because Wiki articles feed other sources, worldwide, avoid unicodes for sharp/flat or use words (such as: F-sharp, A-flat or C-natural). The more precise superscripted forms support music elitists as well as the vast general public on an amazing variety of PCs or Wifi Internet devices. -Wikid77 13:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As has been discussed and more or less agreed before, using an italic b looks even better, since "#" and the true flat symbol are usually slanted. Consecutive italics have wider spacing as well, so the intervening space is not needed. This leads to a revised advice:
  • For flats (b), use "<sup>''b''</sup>"
  • For sharp (#), use "<sup>#</sup>"
Results: F#, C#, Bb, Eb, C##, Gbb.
−Woodstone 09:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Good, except:
(1) Double sharps don't look like that
(2) this discussion belongs at Wikipedia:Manual of style (music)
—Wahoofive (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Music has been created to address the sharps/flats issue. I would suggest it be used instead. For example: {{music|sharp}} produces ♯. See Template:Music for more details.--Dbolton 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Older comments

I have not found a discussion in Wikipedia about the reason for the letter "A" representing the pitch at 440 Hz (and its octaves). I tell my music theory classes that it seems arbitrary. If I were to invent the system of assigning letters to pitches, I would assign the letter "A" to the pitch that is normally called "C." After all, C is the most basic scale of tonal music, having no sharps or flats. I asked a theory professor about this, and he related the assignment of specific pitches to specific letters to an ancient Greek system of notation, but I have forgotten what he said. I would appreciate it very much if someone would address this issue. --G DeBenedetti

This needs a re-write. The picture is great, but:

  • the notes A,B,C... are not seperated by tones.
  • "rung" is ambigious. notes are placed across lines or in spaces.
  • accidental signs change pitch, but accidental notes are those which have been modified by sings to be out of the scale of a piece. This definition becomes shaky in pieces that don't use the diatonic scale.

Part of the problem lies in that the terminology of the subject itself ambiguous. A note is a piece of sound, eg the C sharp key on my piano plays a note. On the page is printed a note, which is C sharp. These two uses of the word to me are different in some way which I can't yet qualify. A rough attempt:

  • Generally: a single sound of constant pitch
  • Musically: a pitch which has a name assigned to it. (eg C sharp; mi )
  • Specifically: the event of a sound being played in a piece of music, or the symbol in printed music representing the sound to be played.


I have the funny feeling I wrote the above, a long time ago. déjà écrit? -- Tarquin

Tarquin's bold moves on the tuning page inspired me to tackle this article. Here's what I deleted and why:

A note in a piece of music either belongs to the scale of the music or is a whole number of octaves away from a note of the scale. It also has a name and a symbol in the notation of the music.
I felt this was unecessarily complex and didn't really add any useful information.
A
tone
B
semitone
C
tone
D
tone
E
semitone
F
tone
G
tone
A
The tone is almost twice a semitone and in modern western music is exactly twice a semitone.
A lot of this stuff is info that belongs on the Scale and Notation pages and is not relevant to an article on notes
after the letter (e.g. C# or F#)
this usage of sharp and flat nomenclature is really secondary and relates only to the verbal usage of speaking about notes. I replaced it with the common usage in notation.
A given piece of music will define at it's beginning The set of accidentals used defines the key signature of their scale.

In Italian notation the notes of scales are given in terms of Do - Re - Mi - Fa - Sol - La - Si rather than C - D - E - F - G - A - B. These names follow the original names given by Guido d'Arezzo, who had taken them from the first syllabs of the first seven verses of a Gregorian Chant. "Do" replaced the originary "ut". 

Gen    Ita

 C     Do
 D     Re
 E     Mi
 F     Fa
 G     Sol
 A     La
 B     Si
Again this is all key/scale/notation stuff that is duplicated (over and over again) elsewhere.

JFQ

This article really needs to be integrated with quarter note, half note, etc., and probably also the sharp and flat articles. The stuff about score and staff really belongs somewhere else. There is already a solfege page, which could use some of the info scattered in this talk page and elsewhere. I want to start on this pretty soon, but we shgould really generate some ideas about what exactly belongs in the note article. Specifically, should sharps and flats be discussed here? If not, where should they go? -- Merphant

This seems a logical place for sharps and flats. A "note" notates pitch and duration, and a flat or sharp is part of the indication of pitch. Whether it's noted in the key signature or nearby is simply "accidental". -- Someone else 02:10 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

In continental Europe (or parts thereof), the B is replaced by a H. This deserves a mention, by someone knowledgable of the subject. -- Egil 19:26 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

I think you pretty much said what needs to be said ;-) B flat is written B, B is H -- Tarquin 19:27 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)
Does anybody know why this is, by the way? I looked in Grove the other day to find out, but it didn't explain it. I'm losing sleep over it. --Camembert
The notation described as "Northern European, and Scandinavian before 1990s" is in fact in use in Hungary (likely german, austrian influence). Not sure about other countries, it was used in Germany sure and I think it is still being used this way but can't testify that :)

Bencze1 (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My Oxford Companion has plenty on this, but it'll take me a while to write up ... I'll try & work on it tonight - Tarquin 19:35 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

Excellent! I look forward to it. --Camembert

Done. And I forgot to put a source note in -- it's the Oxford Companion to Music, 10th ed, 1970. (which I bought for a quid in a library sale!) -- Tarquin 19:56 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

Marvellous. Thanks, tarq --Camembert

There's something wrong, here, but I'm not sure what. Which is B and which is H is more complicated than that, but I've never heard what the correct rule is. See, though, for example, Brahms' B-Flat Piano Concerto: In German, the key is given as "H-dur." --Clayton D. Jones 04:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice work, but it's very Western-centric. There are 24 note octaves and so-on. Indian, Arabic, etc. Anyone with an in-depth knowledge of non-Western music out there? --echidna 15:15, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

♯ and ♭ -- will these show on all platforms? -- Tarquin 10:16, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

  • Probably not on platforms where Unicode is not supported; there should be something like alt text for Unicode characters..... Dysprosia 10:20, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Neither characters show on Windows 5.1 XP Professional, IE6 4.65.244.206 08:03, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
IE still doesn't show it :O (lack of fonts?) Firefox shows it very well :) :)
See above: Symbols for sharps/flats. -Wikid77 13:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Individual articles for notes

Maybe this would be a little overkill, but how about a group of articles, one for each musical note? (E.G. an article about A, an article about B flat, etc.) The articles would contain facts about each note, similar to the group of articles about numbers. For example:

A is the standard tuning pitch (440 Hz).
B flat is one of the common trumpet pitches.
F is the most common car horn pitch.
I dunno... it doesn't seem to me that there would be enough to write about each note to justify giving each one its own article. Such facts could probably be presented in a list here at note. --bdesham 04:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I rather like that idea; we could also include lists of compositions in respective key. --Adam J. Sporka 21:33, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Note name

The phrase "note name" is used in two senses in this article: the letter name and the duration. I propose that the the term "note value" is the standard term encompassing quarter notes, eighth notes, and so on.

Speaking of which, the table of note values could be expanded with small graphics of each one. I'd be happy to do that. --Wahoofive 04:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Hyacinth 05:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looking at JFQ's comment above, how about to include a table that would contain a comparison of the note names across different languages? I will be happy to collect all contributions on my talk page. --Adam J. Sporka 21:57, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have created a table collecting most namings. I moved in the frequencies (one octave) as well. It would be nice to add a row with small pictures of each note on a staff. I do not have the tools. Who volunteers? −Woodstone 12:41:35, 2005-08-28 (UTC)

The table under Note Names seems to have some problems. AFAIK, the entries in the rows named "Flat (text)" and "Sharp (text)" are excusive to German, and should be included in the German row. The English names are simply "F sharp" or "B flat", and could just be included in the row of English note names. Also, the "French/Italian/Spanish/Portuguese" row should include names for the sharp and flat notes. I don't know the specifics for each language, but they likely follow solfege names. --Pesto 18:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Do sostenido for sharp, e.g., and Si bemol for bemol. In Spanish. --euyyn 19:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Staff position

I notice there is no page for "staff position" and no entry (including this one) refers significantly to the lines and spaces of the staff as determinants of the name of the note. Notes can't be placed just anywhere on the staff but must be on a line or space (or ledger line). Is this a policy decision? --Wahoofive 04:46, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History of Note Names

Would someone please add the note names shown in CAPS and lower case letters, with and without apostrophes, to this article? Perhaps under History of... I tried to type examples like a lower case g with 3 apostrophes, but that is apparently code for text formating, because half the preview was in italics. I know the Capital Letters and lower case letters are significant and the apostophes somehow modify the octave, but I can not find definitions anywhere. Maybe if I insert symbols... I think A“ is in the bass clef and g”” is above the treble, but I do not know specifics. Wikipedia has everything else. Please add this soon. --ds5 22:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I had a first go at this. Please have a look. −Woodstone 11:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Octave numbering

This page has systematic errors about MIDI octave numbering, and those errors have led to incorrect frequency values in the table at the end of the "Note name" section. In fact, as the page on MIDI correctly states, MIDI pitch number 0 is C(-1). Thus, the MIDI gamut runs from C(-1) to G9, rather than from C0 to G10. In the table at the end of the "Note name" section, the last two columns agree with each other, but both of those columns should be moved up one line in order to agree with the preceding columns. --Lyle Ramshaw

You are partially right. a′= A4 = 440 Hz = MIDI note 69. I have adjusted the octave numbers. −Woodstone 11:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Note Frequency

As someone who knows almost nothing about music, one sentence in the "note frequency" section seems problematic to me. It says:

music can be composed of notes at any arbitrary frequency. Since the physical causes of music are vibrations of mechanical systems, they are often measured in hertz (Hz), with 1 Hz = 1 complete vibration per second. For historical and other reasons especially in Western music, only twelve notes of fixed frequencies are used.

This seems just plain wrong. There may be only 12 designated pitch classes, but there are clearly more than twelve labeled frequencies. The beginning of the article says:

a note is either a unit of fixed pitch that has been given a name, or the graphic representation of that pitch in a notation system

There are more than 12 named fixed pitch units, and more than 12 graphic representations....

Something's missing

The article gracefully fails to explain why is Do represented by C and not by A, which would be the logical choice.

The French language article doesn't explain why "tree" is represented in French by "arbre" rather than "très", which would be the logical choice. </smartaleck> Seriously, the answer is that thinking of "Do" as the beginning of note-naming, or the "first" note in a scale, is a very recent invention, whereas the association of solfege syllables with note names is much more ancient. I don't think it's necessary to explain this misunderstanding in the article, however. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, I think this explanation is missing. I just searched(!) for this very question and I am glad to have found at least a small piece of discussion about it here. So, when and why (and by whom) was it decided to start from C (Do) and not from A (La)? Would be nice if somebody knowledgable could include this in the article. Thanks! Madmaxx 23:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's only for fixed Do, which isn't used as much as moveable Do. In Moveable Do, Do is represented by the first note in the Major Key as indicated by the key signature. For example, C would represent Do in the Keys of C major and A minor. In the key of B flat Major, Do would be B flat, and so on. (LG) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.84.68 (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are asking why the natural major scale begins with C instead of A, the answer is in the article but it's not explicit. When Boethius assigned letter names, he began with the first pitch of the Greek two-octave system. That system does not begin with a major scale. Its major scale happens to start on the third pitch, which Boethius called C. 2602:306:CC83:FE0:40BA:2D31:9BFD:3424 (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

In the case of the North Indian Musical system I understand that Sa, Re, Ga etc are not associated with any specific frequency, as suggested in the table: eg Sa may be 'above' or "below' C4 by upto a tone at. least. The relative positions remain the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.48.163 (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tone and note

Almost every major dictionary gives two meanings for "note" -- one the notation itself, the other the sound itself. Furthermore, this second meaning is very well established in ordinary musical discourse. People speak of jazz musicians playing "notes" all the time. When Joseph II said that Mozart's music contained "too many notes" he was referring to the way the music sounded, not the way it was written. I'm therefore adding this second definition to the article. Njarl 14:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Other issues

[ Discuss unnamed issues here. -Wikid77 ]

Do - Re - Mi - Fa - Sol - La - Si

I doubt this system is only used in Italian, Greek, French and Russian. In fact, I know for a fact that it's used in more than just those languages/countries as my own language/country uses them. The Germanic notation (ABCDEFG, with H sometimes) is used only by Germanic-influenced countries, I think most of the world uses Guido D'Arezzo's system. Could anyone back this up please? I'm very surprised by how little mention of this system this article makes. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.210.195 (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanese also use this system. i-ro-ha stuff are very dated counting system. not specific to music. my wife (japanese) had never heard about using i-ro-ha for notes. you can learn more about it there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroha but at school, japanese use Do Re Mi Fa So La Si small difference, So is spelled without the l and Si is Shi, since they dont have final L sound and Si sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.175.221 (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Another style of notation, rarely used in English...

This whole section is nonsense. Instead of explaining the system of -is and -es suffixes actually used in many countries, which is based on B natural being called H, this section presents a hypothetical system that is used nowhere. Worse still, it confuses users by "teaching" them incorrect things about what they assume to be the system in use in Germany and Scandinavia. --Espoo 21:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it. --Espoo 21:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The system using B and Bes is not hypothetical. It is used in several countries, including some German editions. There are two systems using the "is" and "(e)s" postfixes. A regular system with B and Bes and a variant using H and B instead. So I had to revert the article. The northern European countries generally use either of these systems, with the "H" variant dominant mainly in Germany (and if you say so, perhaps Finland). The southern European countries tend to use the do-re-mi system. English speaking countries use the sharp/flat notation. The sentence about Heses was imcompresensibly formulated and not essential, so I removed it. To get more references do a Google search like "bes fis". −Woodstone 20:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Here are some references showing the Bes:
Usage seems to focus on the Netherlands and Belgium, but some German refs were found as well. I have made the wording in the article more balanced. −Woodstone 08:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you now recognise the existence of the system using Bes. That is no reason to kick it from the table. −Woodstone 11:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't discover this until now; I thought we were discussing on your talk page. I was never against adding info that has sources, and i added the bes system as soon as I found a reliable source. The original situation was however complete nonsense because it presented the mixture between the English and German system found only in NL (and not normally or perhaps even only very rarely in BE, see nl:Toon_(muziek)) with the combination of bes and the is/es suffixes as the normal is/es system.
I'll have to do some research on the German link you found. No German reference work and no German school uses bes. I presume this is an idiosyncrasy perhaps caused by the author being more of a computer expert than a musician...
The northern European countries generally use either of these systems, with the "H" variant dominant mainly in Germany (and if you say so, perhaps Finland). This is completely wrong. The German system is used in all Scandinavian countries plus all the other European countries that you deleted. Basically all European countries except the Netherlands and countries whose main language is not English or a Romance language use the German system, as it now finally says in the article.
Please add the sharps and flats in the "southern" European system. Maybe French + Italian is enough. If someone wants to add Spanish and Portuguese they can, but it'll look pretty ridiculous because the designations for flats and sharps are all so similar in the Romance languages. --Espoo 22:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Removing links intended to promote websites or products is not arbitrary, but in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Please see WP:LINKS for details. aruffo 05:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture with accidentals

A picture and simple description of the basic music accidentals image

I removed a picture showing the accidentals, which had them confusingly ordered. Would be a good picture if reordered from left to right (perhaps still wavy on two lines): double flat, flat, natural, sharp, double sharp. −Woodstone (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Connected notes?

What are connected notes like this one (♫) called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.190.10 (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

They are called "beamed notes." Note value has more of this kind of information. Maybe we could add a diagram to this article.--Dbolton (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The question is also answered in Modern musical symbols and Beam (music), although getting to either requires scrolling to the end of the article and showing the {{Musical notation}} nav box.
Since this is the main article on Note, ISTM that getting to related articles should be easier.
One possibility would be to rephrase the lead so that it has more related links: "The term note has two primary meanings: 1) a sign used in musical notation …" Another would be to add more hatnotes. --Jtir (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Math and science?

Why you guys put math and science stuff all over the article? Makes it fairly confusing to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.173.239 (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

really vandalism? (here)

The change from b'''''' to g'''''' is reasonable, because immediately right of that is C9-G9, and the MIDI note number does not go to 131. This is not vandalism, unless somebody before this changed B9 to G9 and the highest MIDI note from 131 to 127. I doubt this is the case. --number googol (edits) 03:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is about notes, not MIDI. The musical definition is leading. I have added the shortfall of MIDI as a remark. Shortening the octave is also not consistent with denoting A in the last column. −Woodstone (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

US usage

Shouldn't there be something in the lead about the usage of the word "tone" (US) to mean "note" (UK)? --Jubilee♫clipman 01:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The note naming system

I just went through note pages on other languages and found nice table in italian version, which seems correct. I found on other pages, what languages uses what: Italian System (some with Ut instead of Do): Italians, Spains, Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Ukraine, Belarus, Rusia
Skandinavian system, which is actualy the German system: Germans, Austrians, countries formerly pats of Austria-Hungarian Empire (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Hungaria)
English system - Lithuanians, English, USA

The list is not complete, but you can continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.75.159 (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional citations

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything. It only has one citation, and that one is attached to a statement that is not very well connected to what the source actually says. A source the "two primary meanings" would be nice, if it exists. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Specifically? Hyacinth (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Double minuscules

What are "double minuscules", precisely? Palpalpalpal (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Since miniscule links to lower case, I assume "double miniscule" means double lower case. Hyacinth (talk) 02:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The examples you added make it clear, thanks. Palpalpalpal (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

alternate tunings

The article seems to suggest that A = 440Hz and equal temperament (twelfth-root of 2 relationship) are the only answers, which they are not. I would refer to these as "modern conventions" since historically other tunings and temperaments have been used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.182.195 (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The article already qualifies its statements with the phrase "now-standard tuning pitch for most Western music". --dbolton (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 17 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. The second part, moving the disambig, will require admin assistance, which I will request. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: The full move has now been done, and I have also moved all links to Note so they don't point to a disambig page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


Note → Musical note – No primary meaning. Note usually may mean banknote, note-taking, or something else. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Tremendous oppose. No one would expect an article about musical notes to be titled ?. Georgia guy (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that. The template meant to indicate a target page was undecided upon at the time. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I've updated the template parameter to be in sync with the current proposal. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrect MIDI note number formula?

I am using the MIDI note number calculation formula which is:

Now, I want to calculate the MIDI note number of C5 which is 72. However, when I do the calculations the answer comes out to 20! I am doing the calculations in a python 2.76 session. Here is the following commands I used:

>>> from math import log
>>> C5Freq = 523.251
>>> C5 = (69 + 12) * log( (C5Freq / 440.0), 2)
>>> print(C5)
20.2499708327

What I am doing is first i add 69 to 12. Next, I multiplied the value I got from the addition to the value of the log of C5Freq / 440.0 using a base of 2. This comes out to 20.2499708327. However, the answer should be 72. Is the formula wrong or am I doing something wrong in the calculations? -SGA314 (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you leave out the brackets around (69 + 12) as in the formula?−Woodstone (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I removed the brackets like you said and I got 71.9999956789 as the result. I guess I will need to round up, right? Correction, when I added more precision to the note frequency I got an even 72.0. Here is the note frequency for C5: 523.251130601. The extra precision must have corrected the results to an even number. Thanks sooo much for the help! -SGA314 (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
You should round to nearest (not up). Using finite precision arithmetic you will almost never get exact values. And by the way the MIDI scale for microtuning can also handle the fractional part. −Woodstone (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah good to know. Going back to the original problem, i only added the brackets because the program will do calculations in parentheses or brackets first. Thank you for all of your help. -SGA314 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The image needs to be fixed

The "Written notes" section has an image that makes no sense. It has a C (which means 4/4) time signature but the time signature would have to be 60/4 in order to follow the "don't fill up a measure with too many notes" rule. Georgia guy (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Georgia guy, I have removed the time signature (I also switched to lilypond notation, as I don't know ABC, I am not a musician). Is it better now? --ᛒᚨᛊᛖ (ᛏᚨᛚᚲ) 15:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Musical_note/Archive_1&oldid=1187864011"