Talk:Range (music)

Music theory Top‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Other Brass Instruments

Can someone add other instruments like the euphonium, and mellophone. RJM (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone put the euphonium, baritone horn, alto horn and flugelhorn under a new category called 'saxhorns', because these are not in the horn family. The euphonium could also be placed in the 'tuba' category. The cornet is a member of the horn family, however.2A02:F6E:202C:0:15ED:7E0F:D0F9:E1C9 (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cello Range

The cello range given is only for intermediate cellists. Typical orchestra parts go well over C5, and solo literature goes above C7. The range should be five octaves, not three. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.170.1 (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double bass range

Depending on definition, the double bass typical range goes over that which is in the chart - indeed the double bass wiki page lists a much higher upper range (Stopped note is G4 which is fully doable). Even though the double bass page goes into non-typical but still practically doable, most solo pieces go higher than the this chart suggests. I suggest at least raising the range to match the stopped note on the wiki page (in other words, raising the range to G4, one octave above the violin's lowest note), if not just for consistency across the different pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.227.24.143 (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is 'Typical' range

The 'Typical' range is shown on the chart, yet is not defined in the text. Would it be more accurate and informative if the range of the instrument confortably accessible to a good amateur player were shown, and also in a different colour shade as an extension to the amateur range, the expected range for a competent professional player.

Notes, or some other indication should be included to clarify where the range of instruments has been extended by additional keys or other devices e.g., double bass and trombone keys, inserts etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.163.108 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legibility and layout

This is a great attempt to put all the instruments together, but i think the following suggestions would enhance usability and improve presentation.

1. Blue on green is a poor choice of colours such that much of the text is barely legible. Please use contrasting colours and test for legibility on both screen and print-out. Black for the instrument names would be best with a much lighter background, if any. More or less any font colour is going to come out at lower resolution than black on white. A better font selection would improve legibility.

2. To facilitate legible print out on A4 or similar size paper, the height of the chart could be lessened by removing the lines used to group similar instruments, and grouping with an additional column bracket to the side where there is plenty of space. This would enable row height and font size to be increased.

3. Faint vertical lines at middle C and probably at all other Cs would help to illustrate the ranges more clearly.

4. The note in the header explaining the limitations of range definition leaves a number of questions unanswered, especially as the ranges are bounded by a black line which suggests a definite cut-off. A clearer note explaining whether the ranges shown are 'typical' or indicative and not definitive ranges (since these depend not only on the skill of the player, but gradually change with instrument design and addition of extension keys), and perhaps as to whether they are amateur or professional. Maybe two charts, one for each would be better.

5. An additional column could indicate which instruments are transposing and the key used in writing the score for the instrument. Then confusion between variously pitched instruments such as clarinets and trumpets could be substantially removed by clarifying exactly which instrument range at concert (sounding) pitch is indicated. E.g., clarinet in Bb. This would be really useful, even though it is already shown on other pages.

6. Should the baritone and euphonium be in the horn section or with the tuba in the brass section ? Maybe a general indicative chart such as this should not prescribe such things - they are better left to the discussion of each section or type of instrument since opinions often differ.

7. What are the un-labelled numbers along the bottom - cut off at each end ?

8. Inclusion of 'one-off' and extreme instruments is interesting, but really not very useful. There are quite a few common instruments not listed which would be a better use of available space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.100.158 (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dekh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.235.217.21 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Western instruments

The chart is tremendously useful for composers. I would love to see someone extend this to include some of the more prominent non-Western musical instruments as well. - Surakmath (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]