Talk:Trio (music)

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

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

Requested move 18 August 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was proposed in this section that Trio (music) be renamed and moved to Musical trio.

result:
No consensus. Given more time there were additional objections to this proposal; therefore, no name change will be made at this time. A good idea might be to wait at least a brief time so editors can strengthen their arguments and try again to garner consensus for a different title. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 20:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links: current log • target log • direct move

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Trio (music) → Musical trio – The title is currently ambiguous, because in music, "trio" can also refer to the middle section of a work in Ternary form, such as a march, scherzo, minuet, etc. (see Trio#Musical component). The proposed title would be a natural disambiguation, and also resolve the ambiguity since the musical form is never referred to as a "musical trio". King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC) —Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 23:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: members of WikiProject Classical music have been notified of this request as of 23:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC). P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 00:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened – previous closure

Moved. See below supporting rationales that are policy-based. Opposing rationales, while compelling, are not policy-based. The community consensus behind the Article titles policy cited, WP:NATURALDIS, added to other strong supporting arguments, prevail in this case. (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 01:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editors King of Hearts, Imaginatorium, Red Slash, BD2412, Zxcvbnm, Amakuru and Rreagan007: pinging to the reopening. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 00:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move. Although your argument is quite reasonable, it doesn't quite match the facts. The current article is not very good, I think, but it does quite explicitly discuss the usage of the term "trio" in music, including the use in musical form referring to a middle section. So actually, if "Musical trio" does not cover this meaning, this (extremely short) description would be orphaned. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't view that as covering the topic, but merely alluding to it as a related topic. We can link to Ternary form#Compound ternary or trio form, which has far more information on the musical form, in this article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for natural reasons Red Slash 01:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptical about Oppose move: NG gives 3 definitions along the lines of my recent edit. If the first two are somehow more 'musical', is there a proposed natural dab for the 3rd? Sparafucil (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the natural title. A Google search for the phrase "musical trio is" brings up mostly hits in the sense of the three-person ensemble, indicating a primary topic of the term. BD2412 T 18:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe one is primary. Google merely confirms that active ensembles are more likely to maintain a homepage than the compositions they play are; if I searched a publisher's catalogue the later would vastly predominate, and a case for an alternate dance could probably be made from the index of The Classical Style. (I'm amused that in my own googling of "musical trio" almost half of the first page is about crossword clues.) Sparafucil (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two senses you're talking about are covered by a single article so it's fine. This is very much distinct from the component of a composition, which is never referred to as a "musical trio". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I take the proposal to be splitting things into Musical trio (can this be more than an umbrella treating Jazz trio, Piano trio, String trio, and a host of other "main articles"?) and, um, Trio in ternary form) (as a redirect?) with Trio (music) becoming a disambiguation page with a pointer to Trio sonata. But I understand the goal of WP:Natural disambiguation to be simplifying things. Sparafucil (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's called, simply, "trio" in the Encyclopedia Britannica. "Musical trio" gives the impression that it's called that, and not that "musical" is just used as a disambiguating descriptor._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: See Musical note for precedent. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For other views see Talk:Scale_(music)/Archive_2#Requested_move_to_"Scale_(music)" Sparafucil (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. "Trio (music)" would refer just as much to the middle part of a minuet and trio set so the present name is not good. The proposed name removes that ambiguity, making it solely about a group of three performers, and also satisfies WP:NATURALDIS. — Amakuru (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's called "trio" not musical trio. kosboot (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search for "musical trio" returns plenty of results, so it is at least sometimes referred to as that, which is all that is really required for natural disambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose this proposal makes no sense, unless I'm missing something?? The scope of this article already covers "the middle section of a ternary form" which is definitely not called a "musical trio" so why would that need to be clarified? The current format was doubtlessly created based on the Grove article, the only difference is no one has written anything about trio form here yet, that's it. Is there some proposal to split out "Trio (ternary form)" that's I'm missing? Aza24 (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that already sufficiently covered at Ternary form? It has an entire section, Ternary form#Compound ternary or trio form. This article should be primarily about the sense of a three-person ensemble, which is the meaning that the general population would be most familiar with. BD2412 T 01:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I remarked before, there's confusion about whether the proposal on the floor is for splitting or renaming. If the scope of the article is to change, should a reader wondering why a section of a piece played by more or fewer than 3 is called a trio type "ternary"? What is the redirect to be called then? This 'trio' is not always the middle, btw: Symphony_No._7_(Beethoven)#III._Presto_–_Assai_meno_presto is ABABA[B, no, maybe A instead!] and Brandenburg_Concertos#No._1_in_F_major,_BWV_1046 is menuet-trio-menuet-polaca-menuet-trio-menuet, hardly ternary. Sparafucil (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes I'm confused because I'm not sure that a move is an appropriate way to change the scope of an article, I don't really see an issue with the different ways the trio terms is used being in one article. If one isn't looking for trio as in ternary form they could simply scroll past it. Aza24 (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons given by Gerda and other "oppose" !votes. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missed this

Sadly, I missed this discussion. I would have opposed. Nobody would call a string trio a "string musical trio". What's natural about the construct "musical trio" that I certainly will not use? Who will search for "musical" searching for "trio"? Why is the middle movement of ternary forms called Trio? Because typically it was for three parts - a trio, - it's closely connected. Can this please be reopened, because I see way too little participation to call it a consensus. Was it even mentioned on Classical music project talk? - Find any name, but begin with Trio, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I see, the construct "musical trio" is not even used once in the article. That's good. - Have we thought about Trio, as clearly the primary topic? It would make linking much easier. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3 opposed to 4 in support looks like no consensus to me, and there's been no reply for my request for clarification of what the non-musical trio (music) should be called. Sparafucil (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you do a move review, please, Sparafucil? Unless you, Paine Ellsworth, undo the premature close, and list at Classical music? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda, also missed is the fact that "musical" in this case is just natural disambiguation, so technically the title of the article is "Trio". It's like Trio (musical), only natural instead of parenthetical. With that in mind, do you still want the RM reopened? P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 20:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Also, I note that Classical shows a lot of discussion alerts, but not RMs. What's up with that? (PS added by P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 20:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I probably have a language barrier here. Why make complicated what could be simple. I believe "Trio" has primarily musical meanings, so could/should be just Trio, nothing before or after. As Quartet. All others can be with dabs, no? ... listed under Trio (disambiguation). (I said the same when arguing "composition" vs. "musical composition", and was not heard.) What's next? Musical quartet? Musical symphony? Musical overture? Musical opera? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good points! Looking at the dab page at Trio#Groups we see several types of musical trios as well as many other usages of "trio" on that dab page. Would have to analyze them to see if this article, "Musical trio", is indeed the primary topic for the term. Perhaps what is needed is a new RM? I would gladly either reopen the above RM for you or sanction the opening of a new RM, Musical trio → Trio & Trio → Trio (disambiguation), whatever you like. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 21:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have really extra time for this right now, and wasn't understood in the "composition" discussion, - lack of English perhaps. Sparafucil? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Paine, can we reopen? I agree natural disambiguation can sometimes be more elegant, but Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming_the_specific_topic_articles says "several options are available" and recommends "Natural disambiguation that is unambiguous, commonly used, and clear". To my mind "Musical trio" has trouble with the 1st & 3rd of these. I appreciate your willingness to look into the matter; if you have time peek at Talk:Scale_(music)/Archive_2#Requested_move_to_"Scale_(music)". Sparafucil (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editors Gerda and Sparafucil: all is as it was before, and I have relisted the request. I will leave a note on the WikiProject talk page as well. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 23:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: What do you propose instead? I think having one article on the type of musical group and the type of work makes sense, but the definition of "middle section" really needs to be its own article as the meaning is quite distinct even if the etymology is related. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the specific subject - that a trio can be part of a larger musical form and be called trio - can still be handled in an article Trio, and linked to. We don't have individual articles for all other names of such movements, many after Italian tempo markings, many after dances. An article about trio in a musical form would have to link to so many aspects of trio as a composition for three parts, and groups playing such things, that I'd handle them all in one. If we want to link from a symphony, we don't want to have to think about how the disambiguation may be. Hat note: this article is about the meanings of Trio in music, for other uses ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article now, restructured it to mean 3 things, a composition for three, the form named after such a thing, and an ensemble playing such a thing. Once there, I also changed the deprecated harv referencing to sfn. In the navbox, we have groups of 1 to 10 musicians, and many are the primary topic (2, 4, 5, 6, 7). I vote for moving this article to Trio, and the present Trio to Trio (disambiguation). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.