Talk:Short octave

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Music theory Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A sharp, not B flat

It is historically wrong to label the third "black" key (modern piano colouring) A sharp. It should be called B flat, or at least A sharp/B flat. See http://www.oxfordmusiconline.com/subscriber/popup_fig/img/grove/music/F006159 if you have access to Groves Online. Let's not forget that back then (when short/broken octaves were used) A sharp and B flat were really very different notes. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.44.210 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the G/B variety

In regard to the sentence: "A second type of short octave used the keys B C# D# C D E F# G to play the G major scale G A B C D E F# G. Here, the "exotic" bass notes C# and D# are sacrificed to obtain the more essential G and A. The notation for the pitch range of such an instrument is "G/B".", should it read "E F F# G"? -this would seem to make more sense. --Jdilworth771 (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this out in this source

http://books.google.com/books?id=BAEv248-IiIC&pg=PA24&dq=short+octave&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OcrwTubZOKXfiAKgh6ifDg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=short%20octave&f=false

and the original wordng seems to be correct, except for a small error: it should have read "the more essential A and B". I also added a diagram of the G/B type keyboard to clarify. Thanks for asking. Opus33 (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A# Bb. and other issues

I corrected the A#s to Bbs in the text, before seeing someone else had posted on this subject too. Anyone can help with the images?

I looked in the "special characters" but can't anywhere find a flat symbol. Would be good if Wikipedia could add one.

Someone has asked for a citation - A composer who wrote music conveniently playable only on a broken-octave instrument was Joseph Haydn, whose early work for keyboard was intended for harpsichord, not piano.[citation needed]

but this citation is clearly covered by the sentences following with citation 10 to Gerlach. Should the citation to Gerlach be duplicated there; or just ignore?

Tuningmeister (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, with all respect I would say that your edits strike me as pedantic and unhelpful to most readers. Normal (major) musical scales are depicted with all sharps or all flats. By all means specify that for the ancients d sharp was not the same as e flat, but I think this information should go in a footnote.

Duplicating the citation would be fine, I think.

Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Manual of Style on lead sections

Hello Opus33. Thank you for your comments. I wish to draw your attention to the Wikipedia Manual of Style's section on leads, which is available at MOS:LEAD. The guideline states that the "...lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The Manual of style is an editing guideline on the encyclopedia. I believe that we should provide the reader with a standalone introduction to the key points. I can shorten the last edit even more. Thank youOnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Kurze Oktave" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Kurze Oktave has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 19 § Kurze Oktave until a consensus is reached. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]