Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Time to make this into a task force?

The last attempt to revive this project — about 6 months ago — failed. Is it time to make it into a task force of its parent, the Music project? Any opinions? --Kleinzach 09:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. As you know, the main force behind this project was nrswanson who was banned. I can try to interest some people in the field and see what happens. Give me about a week to see if anyone else joins. -- kosboot (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm interested -Violarulez (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
If you are going to advertise this, please put a notice in WP:WPMU, WP:CM etc. BTW, one advantage of becoming a taskforce is that you have more visibility. --Kleinzach 04:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm in. Is anyone in particular taking the lead? --DannyMuse (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll be glad to help in any way I can. --Mahlerlover1 (converse) 21:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if any of those who joined saw my heads-up to join, but I'd say now is the time to decide whether this is a Wikiproject, or just a task force. -- kosboot (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm...I think Wikiproject—that is, I think an independent WikiProject Music Theory is justified; it just needs some more attention. ...but I'm new here, so perhaps I don't properly understand the distinction between project and task force well enough to judge. At least, following Kleinzach's recommendation and seeing if more people at the related projects are interested seems like a good idea to me. --Mahlerlover1 (converse) 00:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the choice between project and task force depends on what we want to achieve. If we want to focus on assessment, peer review, etc the project format is better. If we just want a place to coordinate our efforts, ask for (informal) feedback, attract new editors to the subject etc, a task force works just as well, is (presumably) less of a hassle to run, gets more attention and so on. My impression is that our biggest problem is lack of active participants (i'm one ov the more inactive ones myself) and therefore i'd like to go for the task force option. But maybe we should try to assess what it is we hope to achieve before we decide? Niklas RTalkpage 18:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to butt in, I don't know how many of you are active participants in the Society of Music Theory and subscribe to their talk email lists, but this topic of Wikipedia and music theory is a hot one at the moment. Needless to say, there should hopefully with time be a growing force of people to help, albeit, it will be small in numbers. I just created this moniker, partially to avoid anonymity (as that's one of the big concerns) and also to start doing what I can, when I can - which as a current Master's student, will probably be minimal.

The big issue is the scope of the project. Looking at the Category:Music theory stubs, there is just too much here and the scope of some of these articles are not in the theory discipline. For instance, Dirge is more of a musicological article, not a theory article. These types of article are abundant. If we get priorities straight, I think it could become a manageable project. Devin.chaloux (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You might also consider taking over these two inactive projects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Music terminology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales. --Kleinzach 07:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Me? Hah, I'm a theorist through and through. I only know a few people who can do the Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales one, but music terminology is something that should be fronted by people with degrees in musicology. Devin.chaloux (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a way to approach this task force/project is to do as the opera project does, make lists of articles based on their priority. -- kosboot (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Reorganizing some of them to be under the Music Project might not be a bad idea either. Devin.chaloux (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The Music Project is basically an umbrella for the others — proving a forum for discussions of general interest. In the past it's been difficult to get serious and popular music editors together. The Music project provides an opportunity for this. What it doesn't do is to make assessments of individual articles or put banners on article talk pages. Most of the heavy lifting is done by music genre projects. For an idea of the relative activity of the different projects see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Statistics.
Given, as Devin.chaloux says, that few people have the expertise to do Tunings, Temperaments, and Scales, I'm wondering if we could make it a specialized task force here. (Left to itself it may get merged, redirected or deleted as being useless.) I can do the technical work involved if this is approved.
Per kosboot, making a priority list and identifying collaborations would definitely be a good way of kick-starting this project again. --Kleinzach 03:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Composers who wrote theoretical works

I also came across this problem: Some composers have small articles on their works, but only a 1-2 sentence mention of their theoretical work. One person even told me that the small Wikipedia article was larger than the entry in New Grove. But Damschroder shows that such article could be reasonably enlarged, providing theoretical information. How should one treat such issues? -- kosboot (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That person was me. To expand Agostino Agazzari one would really need the Ph.D. dissertation from UCLA done a couple decades ago (or do original research and read his treatise -- but that's for outside of Wikipedia). I saw about one sentence that could be added from the reference you cited on the talk page, and I may do so soon (thank you for finding that -- that looks like a good reference source for other historical music theorists). Remember that Wikipedia is full of very short articles on obscure figures that are coherent and reasonably well developed from available sources; it's not really right to categorize them as stubs. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Followup: I made a mistake. If you go to the online New Grove, you will find there are two parallel articles on Agazzari -- one by Margaret Murata, and one by Colleen Reardon (author of that Ph.D. dissertation, and the subsequent 1993 OUP book). Have any of you ever seen that before?? If you use the search function, click on the second link, not the first. Turns out there is a more robust article now than in the 1980 Grove (the one I used to write part of Agazzari's article in 2004). So there is more to add, and it is much more extensive than in the single paragraph in the Damschroder, and it can be sourced to Reardon who turns out to be the current expert on Agazzari (at least of those who write in English). Antandrus (talk) 00:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually I think it would be better to leave composers with the Composers project. Music theory would be better to concentrate on theory articles, which by and large, are in a much worse state than the composers. That's my view anyway. --Kleinzach 01:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree here. For those who did both a lot of composition and theory, we can always go back into the pages eventually and add what we need to. But if they're foremost known for composing, then keep it with the composers project. Jean-Philippe Rameau first comes to mind in this subject. That theory section could use some attention eventually, but I think it'd be best to focus on some of the articles first and securing the momentum we have on this project before we go on other's turf! Devin.chaloux (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Note of interest

I was just browsing through some Wikipedia pages and noticed some pages like Binary form not included in the music-theory project. When we finish cleaning up the list of stubs, it might be wise for those of us who are very familiar in the field to make sure we catch some of these obvious pages that should be in our scope. Devin.chaloux (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That's right. Many music theory articles have not been project bannered. I can make some stats and we can look at them when we've completed the stub review. --Kleinzach 05:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I suppose you are right. At least this project is on a role right now. I hope to recruit a few more people when I get back to school to help out, but I'm not sure how that will go. I have one guy in mind for the tunings and temperaments part. Devin.chaloux (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

To-do list of articles

I don't have the time until this evening, but I propose creating a list of names and topics that

  1. don't have articles in Wikipedia;
  2. have articles which are in need of amplification.

To begin this project, I plan to use the Damschroder/Williams and Williams/Balensuega books as a start. At the very least, it might encourage those teaching "history of music theory" courses to have students create articles. -- kosboot (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I would add "3. Have articles in need of cleanup, citations, etc.", but otherwise support. --Mahlerlover1 (converse) 01:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I have started the Cleanup list with a (very) few articles that I could remember from the stubs. Not enough to meet the requirements of a "T-do list" as outlined above yet. --Mahlerlover1 (converse) 01:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Music theory stubs

As Devin.chaloux noticed there are problems with Category:Music theory stubs. Some of them are not relevant — and many of them are not stubs. I've found a lot of reasonably developed articles. I wonder if anyone would be interested in volunteering to going through a section of them? Perhaps letter by letter, ABC etc? There are 362 to them to check. Thanks. --Kleinzach 14:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Would it be necessary to define a stub? I can understand for a person or a big topic a reasonably-sized article is warranted. But how could one make an article such as Diminished octave not be a stub? Just tons of examples? -- kosboot (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
That's right. Here is a definition: The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. (from the Opera Project). --Kleinzach 01:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that some of the stubs have other problems too. Maybe it would be a good idea to list that information somewhere while we're at it? (i guess that the toolserver could do this for us somehow, but i can't seem to make it work...) Niklas RTalkpage 17:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Er, list what kind of information? -- kosboot (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess i wasn't too clear on that, eh? :) What i'm trying to say is that if we go through all the stubs looking for non-stubs, non-music-theory-stubs etc, we will also stumble upon articles within the scope of this wikiproject marked with e.g. {{citation needed}}, {{cleanup}} or other maintenance templates. We might want to gather this information somwhere, presumably in some kind of table.
Thank you - now I understand. :) I would think this would possible to do automatically. Is it, Kleinzach? -- kosboot (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, but it would take time to set up the kind of systems that are used by a mature project with several years history and dozens of members. Perhaps it might be more practical to start by just checking stub tags and leaving the rest until later? --Kleinzach 01:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
A

I have gone through A. I replaced {{music-theory-stub}} with {{music-stub}} in the following articles:

I removed stub tags on:

So this means these articles are reasonably-sized, yes? -- kosboot (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Or I didn't think they could get much bigger. --Mahlerlover1 (converse) 23:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
That is, I thought they said most, if not all, of what could be said on those topics. --Mahlerlover1 (converse) 23:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I was unsure about:

Under the 'Scope' section on the project page it explains "this project covers Western music only and does not cover notation systems or terminology created or used in other cultures." --Kleinzach 01:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but I just noticed that the category itself says "This is a category for topics in Music theory, both Western and non-Western." Should this be changed? --Mahlerlover1 (converse) 22:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Let's go with the categorys definition, the scope of this project might be able to expand to cover non-western theory if/when we have some participants willing and able to do the work. (btw, does country and hillbilly music count as western or is it lumped with jazz, classical, blues, gregorian chant, raga and all the other non-western music?) Niklas RTalkpage 00:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
The other WP:CM projects have concentrated on western music for purely practical reasons. Handling sources and references in Arab, Indian, Chinese, Japanese and Indonesian music is difficult. I think It's really best left to editors with special language skills. --Kleinzach 01:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Depends on what you consider hillbilly music and when it was composed. Anything pre-1900 should be considered in the scope of what we're doing, in my opinion. Devin.chaloux (talk) 03:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the stub tag. The text is coherent. It was already marked as 'Start' class on the talk page. --Kleinzach 01:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Aural space (not even sure that that's music-related at all)
That's right. I've switched it to a different stub. --Kleinzach 01:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I identified the following stubs as needing attention:

Yes, but in my view that one is a 'Start' because it already has examples and sources. --Kleinzach 15:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles that probably should be moved/merged:

There are now 354 articles in the category. (Sorry about the length.) --Mahlerlover1 (converse) 00:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

B, C

 Done --Kleinzach 00:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

D

 Done--Mahlerlover1 (converse) 01:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

E
An interesting discussion is going on in the Talk:F minor page about merging the two. I'm in favor. Not sure why the stub is there in the first place, but since none of the other keys are there, I removed the music theory stub designation. My opinion, get in on the debate and support a merge.
Unsourced, not in the scope of our project. Removed music theory-stub. Added music-stub designation.
Changed to start-class. Need some heavy work but it's started.

Anyone want to chime in before we mark this section done? Devin.chaloux (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed Eighth octave C to music stub, and destubbed Extension (music). I think this section is now  Done --Mahlerlover1 (converse) 21:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
F
There is a discussion in this page that the article should be deleted. I'm not sure how to start this process since I'm new, but I agree fully. The article is unnecessary. But for the time being, I'll leave it a stub.
Removed medieval-music-theory-stub and added music-stub. (Did we assume control of the medieval project?)
Removed medieval-music-theory-stub and added music-stub.
Same thing with F+, this article is already covered in Dynamics (music) and it's redundant. If someone doesn't mind helping me learn how to deal with this, that would be appreciated!
Removed music-theory-stub and added music-stub.

Otherwise, it's done. Devin.chaloux (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

G, H, I, J, K

 Done --Kleinzach 14:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

L
Otherwise  Done Niklas RTalkpage 09:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I just took a look into the article. I've never heard the term "level" be used for something like this, but it seems plausible. I'm unfamiliar with the source, but I think it is a term that is limited only to that source. I researched "level" in Grove Music Online and it forwarded me to "layer" as in the Schenkerian term (or known as "structural level.") If I'm thinking of the term "level" in music, I personally think that. We may have to completely blow this article apart and write a new article with "level" in the Schenkerian sense and then just make the discussion that is there now as a small paragraph of the larger article. Devin.chaloux (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I got the impression that it should be merged into some other article, but i can't really find a suitable one... ����Niklas RTalkpage 21:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
M

 Done --Kleinzach 12:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

N, O

Done. -- kosboot (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

P-R

 Done --Mahlerlover1 (converse) 00:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

S-Z

 Done --Kleinzach 05:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Taking stock of the project

Now that the stub check is winding down we can look at the project and see things a little more clearly. We have:

  • stubs: 173
  • bannered articles: 384

We can also get an idea of the total extent of music theory articles by looking at categories, starting with the main one:

The best way to effectively banner all the articles within the scope of the project is to make a list of categories within the scope of the project, and then ask for a bot to automatically put a project banner on each article talk page going through the categories one by one.

It may also be worth considering electing a project coordinator to look after the bannering as this can be technically complicated. (The bot operator has to be given precise instructions or the bot run can be a disaster.)

I hope that's helpful! Please ask if anything is unclear. (BTW I am not a musicologist so I'm not planning to actually join the project!) Regards! --Kleinzach 14:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how the bot thing works, but it sounds great. Musicology is its own beast though. To put it in perspective, for every music theorist registered with the Society for Music Theory (SMT), there are 4 (!) musicologists registered in the American Musicological Society (AMS). (As I'm sure you know Kleinzach) If anything, a different task force for that would be ideal, but given how few of us there are, it may not be ideal. So, do we just have to double check what the bot does? I might be able to do that. If not, please clarify! Devin.chaloux (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
OK. I have removed Category:Musicology from Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory/Categories. --Kleinzach 02:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I think a lot of the articles in Category:Aspects_of_music with sub categories could be in the scope of this project as well, they are kind of the basics, if you know what i mean. I can look through the category during the next few days and try to assess if all the articles should be tagged or just some of them, and if that is the case mark the interesting ones myself. (if it's all of them we could let the bot do it) Niklas RTalkpage 18:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Before doing a bot run we need to define the categories of the project. I have started a category page here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory/Categories. Would you like to add more categories? Also delete any you don't think belong in the list! If possible in groups. An example of an organized category page is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Categories. It's worth noting that categories are nested inside other categories. This can be tricky because the main category can be relevant while the nested sub-category may not be. --Kleinzach 21:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

What about Category:Musical form? It's a rather incomplete category though. --Mahlerlover1 (converse) 01:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Category:Musical form contains Category:Formal sections in music analysis which does look like a music theory collection. On the other hand I would have thought music terminology articles should lie outside the scope of this project, though this is for you to decide! --Kleinzach 02:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, the project scope (which I think is pretty good as it stands) includes "Compositional form and structure", as well, so that would include Category:Musical form (...and the articles that currently are not in that category but should be—I'll see about sorting that out tommorrow, if I can...). However...perhaps the scope needs to be thought about a bit more before we go foward? —Mahlerlover1 (converse), 03:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
To the original question on whether music terminology articles should lie outside the scope of this project - yes and no. Normally, I think they shouldn't. But considering that a substantial part of the field dwells in musical form, it is something we should include in the project. This will take some sifting to figure out what should and shouldn't be included. For instance, Gigue is an example of something that should NOT be included but binary form is something that should. It will be important to look on definitive sources on the subject, like Caplin's "Classical Form" and Hepokoski and Darcy's "Elements of Sonata Theory." Anything in the scope of these two sources should be considered well in the field of what we are talking about. Devin.chaloux (talk) 05:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
So what should be done next? I've made a list (from the Damschroder book) of all the theorists - would like to put it somewhere here. I could also compile a list of all the terms he uses for topics, but I bet that nearly all of them have articles already. (Though a nice long-range project would be to supplement those topics with writings from the theorists he mentions.). -- kosboot (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Probably not a bad idea. I'm not familiar with the Damschroder book only because I haven't gotten to that part of my education yet, but I'm sure to encounter it soon enough! When I return to school, I'll take a look at it in the library and see what we're looking at. Devin.chaloux (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added Category:Aspects of music and many of its sub (and sub-sub) categories to the list diff. Some of the categories i added are on the border (or past it?) of being pure terminology categories, so please check if i've gone too far ;) Niklas RTalkpage 11:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


List of terms from Music Theory From Zarlino to Schenker

Here is a list of terms I compiled from this book by Damschroder/Williams. They have this "topical index" to indicate the major concepts discussed in treatises. Their index is classified, subsuming some terms under others. I've taken those references and added them to the main alphabetical listing to create a detailed list of terms/concepts. I've already eliminated those terms dealing with instruments. In order to focus/define what this group is about, we can eliminate even more, which would leave those articles and potential articles belonging to this group. Here ya go:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosboot (talk • contribs)

Are you going to add links to existing articles? --Kleinzach 22:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd say the question is what to do. It's easy to determine which terms do not have articles. For those that do have articles, the question is whether it would come under the aegis of this project, and then figure out a method to determine which articles are in need of amplification. Ideally, I'd like to see something like what's on the opera or musical theatre projects: lists of articles to be created, lists of articles to be enhanced, lists of articles in need of substantial amplification. As far as article quality, how does the group mutually decide on the various classes? BTW, thanks for all your assistance! -- kosboot (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding article quality, a project normally follows its Assessment page. I've done some editing to our one here, but it needs more customization. BTW my impression so far is that many, many of them are 'Start class'. --Kleinzach 01:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Nice! Great with the table at the top, very easy to get a quick impression of where we are right now. Niklas RTalkpage 01:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Physiology of hearing and the "Psychology of" ones are probably not in our scope, and the same for Style, Aesthetics, etc., and Voice and Singing are definitely not, so I have struck them out. Not so sure about Text-setting and Text-Music relation.
Re: Assessment... That should probably be our next step, determining assessment guidelines and then going through Category:Unassessed Music Theory articles. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 02:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I'd say Aesthetics is in the scope of our project. It's the bread and butter of some theories out there, especially when it comes to semiotics. Dalhaus was very influential. With that said, I am definitely not the person to elaborate on that. I personally can't get myself in the right mindset to study the aesthetics of music! Devin.chaloux (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


I tried going through a few articles (based on the Damschroder book) putting the music theory banner on their talk pages. But then I realized that the current banner does not serve the function that a category would, of concatenating articles. Is there a way to fix that? -- kosboot (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That is, should the banner be altered, or should one add the banner AND a category? -- kosboot (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The banner does create a category, see Category:WikiProject Music Theory articles. BTW it's a good idea to put a MT banner on the talk page if you remove the MT stub tag from the article. --Kleinzach 01:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been removing the banners from the stubs that haven't had anything to do with the project. Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing? At the same time, if we add the banner, does it automatically add the stub if we classify it as such? Devin.chaloux (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes to the first question — no to the second! --Kleinzach 07:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

List of music theorists from Music Theory From Zarlino to Schenker

Here's a list of the theorists in the Damschroder/Williams book. Even if they have articles, the book provides very nice bibliographies - far superior to those found in New Grove. -- kosboot (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Very good. My recommendation would be to turn this into a mainspace article called List of music theorists adding dates, and possibly other information. It can then be used as a checklist (with red and blue links) for article creation. (Dividing it by period might also be better than leaving it alphabetical.) --Kleinzach 08:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, which I particularly like since one can't get such a list based on existing categories (which divide everyone up by nationality). I'll implement it as soon as I get the book which covers theorists prior to Zarlino - and can list all the theorists there. -- kosboot (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hm, now I'm thinking of the issue of inclusion. Technically, anyone who teaches music theory today (and merits an article in Wikipedia) could be included in that list. What do you see as a way to clarify the parameters of inclusion for that list? -- kosboot (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Clearly an issue. I think it would be best to start with the "rock star" names in the field. These are the names I knew even in undergraduate school because they're so prominent. I'm thinking along the lines of Straus, Hepokoski and Darcy, Caplin, Rothstein, etc. Have to include some of the (relatively) recently deceased as well, like Lewin. I am just thinking of the capstone publications that have occurred in the last 20 or so years and use that as a guideline. (Forte and Babbitt are missing too. And Perle.) Devin.chaloux (talk) 13:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Though I may seem quiet, I'm now working on the pre-Damschroder volume (Boethius to Zarlino), getting dates for everyone to arrange it in chronological order; then I'll have to work on the list above. When all that is done, then I'll create the new page List of music theorists as Kleinzach suggested. Btw, there are a LOT of theorists not in Wikipedia - would make a great class assignment. -- kosboot (talk) 19:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

List of music theorists from Antiquity to Zarlino

(See comment below this list)

Theorists from Williams/Balensuela

From Middle Ages to 12th century

  • Augustine of Hippo (354-430)
  • Martianus Capella (early 5th cent)
  • Boethius (480-524 or 525)
  • Cassiodorus (485-580)
  • Isidore of Seville (ca. 560-636)
  • Anonymous 8 (Musica enchiriadis) (9th cent)
  • Johannes Scottus Eriugena (ca. 810-877)
  • Hucbald of Saint-Amand (ca. 840-930)
  • Notker the Stammerer (840-912)
  • Aurelian of Reome (fl. 840-850)
  • Regino of Prüm (d. ca. 915)
  • Notker Labeo (950-1022)
  • Guido of Arezzo (ca. 991-after 1033)
  • Anonymous 7 (Gerbert) (Alia musica) (9th-10th cent)
  • Berno of Reichenau (early 11th cent-d. 1048)
  • Pseudo-Odo (Dialogus de musica (11th cent.)
  • Hermannus Contractus (1013-1054)
  • Theogerus of Metz (ca. 1050-ca. 1120)
  • Coussemaker, doc. 1 (Ad organum faciendum) (2nd half of 11th cent)
  • Aribo (fl. 1068-1078)
  • Wilhelm of Hirsau (d. 1091)
  • Frutolfus of Michelsberg (mid 11th cent-1103)
  • Johannes Cotto (fl. 1100)
  • Guido of Eu (fl. 1130s)
  • Theinred of Dover (12th cent)

13th century

  • Ficker Anonymous ((Vatican organum treatise) (early 13th cent)
  • Franco of Cologne (13th cent)
  • Bartholomeus Anglicus (before 1203-1272)
  • Roger Bacon (1214-1292)
  • Coussemaker, doc. 3 (Discantus vulgaris positio) (ca. 1230)
  • Egidius de Zamora (fl. 1260-80)
  • Anonymous 4 (De mensuris et discantu) (ca. 1270-80)
  • Amerus (fl. 1271)
  • Hieronymus of Moravia (d. after 1272)
  • Anonymous 2 (Tractatus de discantu) (late 13th cent.)
  • Engelbert of Admont (ca. 1250-1331)
  • Jacob of Liège (ca. 1260-after 1330)
  • Johannes de Garlandia (fl. 1270-1320)
  • Magister Lambertus (fl. Ca. 1270)
  • Petrus de Cruce (late 13th cent.)
  • Petrus de Picardia (mid 13th cent)
  • Elias Salomo (late 13th cent.)
  • Sowa Anonymous -- Anonymous of St. Emmeram (De musica mensurata (1279)

14th century

  • Philippe de Vitry (ca. 1291-1361)
  • Hugo Spechtshart (ca. 1285-1359/60)
  • Anonymous 3 (Compendiolum artis veteris) (early 14th cent.)
  • Johannes Vetulus de Anagnia (1st half of 14th cent)
  • Petrus Frater Dictus Palma Ociosa (fl. Early 14th cent)
  • Johannes de Grocheio (fl. 1300)
  • Manuel Bryennius (14th cent.)
  • Walter Odington (d. 1330)
  • Johannes de Muris (ca. 1290-after 1344)
  • Marchetto da Padova (b. 1274?- fl. 1305-1319)
  • Anonymous 7 (Coussemaker) (De diversis manieribus) (mid 14th cent)
  • John Hanboys (late 14th cent.)
  • Robert de Handlo (early 14th cent.)
  • John of Tewkesbury (fl. 1351-1392)
  • Johannes Boen (d. 1367)
  • Ellsworth Anonymi (The Berkeley Manuscript (before 1375)
  • Anonymous 5 (Ars cantus mensurabilis) (late 14th cent.)
  • Johannes Ciconia (1360-1412)
  • Philippus de Caserta (late 14th cent.)

15th century

  • Fernand Estevan (early 15th cent)
  • Giorgio Anselmi (ca. 1386-1440/43)
  • Ugolino of Orvieto (ca. 1380-1452)
  • Antonius de Leno (early 15th cent)
  • John Hothby (ca. 1410-1487)
  • Johannes Gallicus (ca. 1415-1473)
  • Prosdocimus de Beldemandis (d. 1428)
  • Johannes Tinctoris (ca. 1435-1511)
  • Bartolomeus Ramis de Pareia (ca. 1440-after 1491)
  • Adam von Fulda (1445-1505)
  • Johannes Cochlaeus (1449-1552)
  • Anonymous 11 (Tractatus de musica plana et mensurabili) (mid 15th cent.)
  • Anonymous 12 (Tractatus de musica) (2nd half of 15th cent)
  • Franchinus Gaffurius (1451-1522)
  • Nicolo Burzò (1453-1528)
  • Giovanni Spataro (1458-1541)
  • Domingo Marco Durán (ca. 1460-ca. 1529)
  • Erasmus Horicius (ca. 1465-early 16th cent)
  • Michael Keinspeck (ca. 1470-mid 16th cent)
  • Lodovico Fogliano (ca. 1475-1542)
  • Johannes Aventinus (1477-1534)
  • Pietro Aaron (ca. 1480 ca. 1550)
  • Nicolaus Wollick (ca. 1480-1541)
  • Melchior Schanppecher (b. ca. 1480)
  • John Tucke (ca. 1482-d. after 1539)
  • Martin Agricola (1486-1556)
  • Heinrich Glarean (1488-1563)
  • Georg Rhau (1488-1548)
  • Giovanni Del Lago (ca. 1490-1544)
  • Giovanni Maria Lanfranco (ca. 1490-1545)
  • Andreas Ornithoparchus (ca. 1490-?)
  • Bonaventura da Brescia (late 15th cent.)
  • Guilelmus Monachus (late 15th cent.)
  • Guillermo de Podio (late 15th cent.)
  • Sylvestro di Ganassi dal Fontego (Silvestro Ganassi) (ca. 1492-mid 16th cent)
  • Stephanus Vanneo (1493-1535)
  • Sebald Heyden (1499-1561)
  • Heinrich Faber (before 1500-1552)

16th century

  • Simon de Quercu (early 16th cent)
  • Auctor Lampadius (ca. 1500-1559)
  • Adrianus Petit Coclico (ca. 1500-1562)
  • Juan Bermudo (1510-1565)
  • Nikolaus Listenlus (b. ca. 1510)
  • Ghiselin Danckerts (ca. 1510-after 1565)
  • Nicola Vicentino (1511-1576)
  • Francisco de Salinas (1513-1590)
  • Gioseffo Zarlino (1517-1590)
  • Aiguino de Brescia (1520-1581)
  • Hermann Finck (1527-1558)
  • Pietro Pontio (1532-1595)
  • Gallus Dressler (1533-ca. 1580/9)
  • Orazio Tigrini (ca. 1535-1591)
  • Philibert Jambe de Fer (fl. 1548-1564)
  • John Wylde (mid 15th cent.)
  • Jean Yssandon (1555-1582)
  • Claudius Sebastiani (fl. 1557-65)
  • William Bathe (1564-1614)
  • Tomás de Santa Maria (d. 1570)
  • Eucharius Hoffmann (d. 1588)
  • Gaspar Stoquerus (late 16th cent)

From the Williams/Balensuela book, I made this list, putting it in rough chronological order. The problem is that before the 15th century, most dates are somewhat conjectural, and many are vague such as "mid 15th century." That gives a list a strange appearance. Nevertheless, see what you all think. Of course this chronological problem shouldn't be an issue with the later theorists. -- kosboot (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I'm beginning to think that - if Kleinzach thinks a chronological list is preferable, then maybe up to the 14th century, each subsection could be alphabetized - otherwise it looks too chaotic for my taste. -- kosboot (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess I was inspired by this idea and finally created the page, but have not wikified anything yet (or reconciled Wikipedia's names with the ones found in the books). Have a look: List of music theorists -- kosboot (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. I guess you are going to put in sections and links, right? --Kleinzach 06:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Coordinator

Getting the project established again involves technical chores. IMO these would be best done by someone elected.

The job of the coordinator would be to:

  • archive discussions
  • maintain categories, assessments, and guidelines according to the wishes of the project
  • arrange bot runs
  • manage project collaborations ('Article of the Month' or whatever)
  • solicit opinions, mediate disputes and 'cast the deciding vote' if opinion is deadlocked
  • post notices for the project when necessary etc.

The Films Project explain how coordinators work, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators, though this project would obviously have a scaled-down version. Would anyone like to be a candidate? --Kleinzach 07:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd do it, but I feel so new to Wikipedia it wouldn't be right for me! Maybe later :) Devin.chaloux (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Go for it! You may be new to Wikipedia but what a fantastic learning experience it would be! -- kosboot (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, it couldn't be too difficult, could it? I don't think I'll have the time for it myself, but if I did... —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 02:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Go Devin! The trick is to delegate... Niklas RTalkpage 09:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. ...but there only seem to be three out of all eleven active participants active here. If we're going to elect a coordinator then ideally all project participants should be given the opportunity to volunteer for the position and vote for candidate(s), shouldn't they? —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 02:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, ideally a statement from each candidate explaining the degree of his or her interest and commitment might clarify who would be best to take this on. --Kleinzach 06:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to nominate all of you: Devin.chaloux, kosboot, Mahlerlover1, and Niklas R! How much time could each of you give to the project each week? That's probably the main consideration. --Kleinzach 03:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not much, alas... Most of my wp-time is spent on svwp, where the music theory is in a much worse state. Niklas RTalkpage 11:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm so busy with so many projects - Wikipedia is like my break from other stuff. But I think Devin would be a great candidate. -- kosboot (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll accept the nomination since you guys seem to think I can do it! --Devin.chaloux (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
OK. Let's also hear from Mahlerlover1. Do we have one candidate (unopposed) or is there a possibility of there being two? --Kleinzach 00:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
If Devin's willing I'll let there be only one candidate. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 01:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Good. I guess Devin.chaloux is duly installed as project coordinator! Congratulations to Devin! I'll put his name on the project page. --Kleinzach 06:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Should we compose a fanfare for our glorious leader? Seriously, if you need help with anything Devin, put a note on my talk page, or on my swedish talk page if you need a quicker response. Niklas RTalkpage 08:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Music theory/Music Theory category problem

For the future coordinator! : This project is called 'Music theory' (cap. M small t), however at some time in the past someone created categories under 'Music Theory' (cap M cap T). That's created some problems (for example here and here). I am now trying to get all the categories reset to 'Music theory' (cap. M small t). --Kleinzach 09:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This is now fixed (I hope!). We have a new figure for the total number of articles within the scope of the project: 582. --Kleinzach 11:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories

I just created 2 new categories based on the list of music theorists, Flemish music theorists (e.g. Tinctoris) and Irish music theorists (e.g. William Bathe). Are there any more in need of creation? -- kosboot (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

New project for someone who is bored...

There are a few pages tagged with the project banner, but don't have a class set to them. I think it would be wise to put them in their appropriate category. Some of these will be done in the next few days with the music theorists list. Anyway, here they are: Category:Unassessed_Music_Theory_articles --Devin.chaloux (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I went through a few (A-C), most were start class.—Mahlerlover1 (converse) 02:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
This is now Category:Unassessed_Music_theory_articles. --Kleinzach 14:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help Kleinzach. (I guess you just know where to find stuff!) Much easier to find what we need to evaluate. That's a pretty big list and probably should be where we start next. I'm just hoping we can finish most of these types of projects in the next month or so, so we can focus on articles in the near future. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, once you have got some of the basic chores out of the way, you should be able to decide which pages to work on. It looks as though you will end up with less than a thousand articles which will be quite manageable. (By comparison Classical music have over 10,000, Composers over 5,000.) --Kleinzach 16:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Luckily a few overlap too. I was looking through the Classical music project last night - looks like quite the monster! --Devin.chaloux (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
One important point about Classical music is that they manage all articles that are not handled by other projects such as Composers, Opera — and now by extension WP:MTH. So any article here should be excluded from WP:CM. --Kleinzach 15:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

As we go through these articles, I'd just like remind everyone of the project Cleanup list. If you come across any articles that are incoherent, unreferenced, unencyclopedic, etc., don't negelect to add it to the list so we can know it needs the project's attention. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 02:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Articles for discussion

Talk pages sans articles, Intervals

This is an odd case. As the article is now a redirect to Time signature I removed the project banner, but was wondering if there is any way to delete the unneeded talk page. And the same with Talk:E(box-thingy which is supposed to be a ♯) (but I didn't remove the banner there). Weird... I also came across this, which has been tagged for notability since 2008. I marked it as stub-class, but was thinking about proposing it for deletion. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 00:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think generally talk pages for redirects should be left undeleted, often the reason for redirecting is on that page (this was not the case here though). The project banner should be removed however (or we create a redirect-rating for the banner but that seems like overkill). Niklas RTalkpage 00:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I came across the same thing again with Talk:Major tone (article redirected to Major second). If the reason for the redirect were on the pages then I would leave it alone, but in these cases the pages seem like wastes of (cyber)space to me. But I suppose it's not serious enough to worry much about. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 01:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
That probably needs fixing, as the two are such different things. There are plenty of major seconds on a piano, but no major tones. I'm just looking around here, but there seems to be a good deal of similar confusion between functional intervals and tuning intervals in other existing articles; Diminished second, for example, seems to be largely about the tuning of the interval and to lack any explanation of its function or definition. I was surprised to find no article on Second (music), which might perhaps serve as a jumping-off point for the various flavours of second. But I'm not going to dive in and mess with stuff without some kind of consensus here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you're on to something, if you can make a coherent structure for all the intervals – go for it! Niklas RTalkpage 11:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it would be a good idea to fold all the articles on intervals into articles titled Unison (musical interval), Second (musical interval), Third (musical interval), etc.? (That's actually not far off from what the Major second article does.) Might be worth seeing if the information on differences in types and tunings could be more adequately and coherently presented that way. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 00:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I actually disagree only on the premise that these articles are well developed in their own and that combining them would only present confusion. Tunings are different for each interval and it wouldn't make sense to group them by "second" "third" etc. It would make more sense to do an overarching generic article in the Interval (music) (which it currently does.) Maybe I'm missing the point here, but these articles seem fine at the moment. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Just throwing it out there. Technically, tuning is outside our scope, anyway. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 02:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Equal Interval System

Regarding this article, Equal Interval System, mentioned above, my suggestion would be to merge it with Spud Murphy making Equal Interval System into a redirect. (The MTH banner can then be removed.)--Kleinzach 23:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably. I spent some time looking over the article history, though, and it seems to have started out as a pretty good article—if unreferenced—(see this version from 2007, for instance), but was reduced to its current state and tagged for notability by a User:Kingturtle in 2008. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 00:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
For some reason, EIS is jumping out as a term I know from somewhere else. I'd say let's do the redirect though...but the term seems vaguely familiar. If anyone knows more about it, feel free to chime in. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 Done --Kleinzach 02:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

20th century theorists problem

To compile the List of music theorists was comparatively easy - I just used the two leading bibliographies. 20th is much more difficult because there is no comparable work. There are books whose bibliographies contain long lists of theorists and their publications, but that list would be much longer than the current list of 230+ people. As I see it, the problem with selecting people is that it's arbitrary. Pehaps a solution would be to find all the names listed in, say, 3-5 leading books, although I think that would still be a lot. So I'm still thinking about this. -- kosboot (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This might be an appropriate issue to bring up to the SMT talk page. Then again, we may have people who want to self promote. But I'd be curious as to what other music theorists say about this topic. It definitely is one difficult to discern who's notable and who isn't. We may just have to rely on our own senses and when we find a page that is appropriate to include in that list, then we include them. Like Milton Babbitt --Devin.chaloux (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hm, my feeling is to stay away from SMT. (Did you know that an outside organization is not allowed to bring their presence to Wikipedia in order to edit it?). But mentioning Babbitt did remind me of a few other books to consult. Considering how many theorists are not on Wikipedia, I expect that there are not that many 20th century theorists to include. If they haven't published anything, their entries would probably be removed as not meeting notability requirements. So at least as an initial step, I'd say any 20th century theorist already on Wikipedia should be on this list. (That automatically includes composers who taught, e.g. Babbitt, Perle, etc.) -- kosboot (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I did see that when reading the rules of SMT and seeing the awesome arbitration against the Scientology church (yikes...that seemed like WWIII!) I figured we could just pose the question and get a good response on where we can look through them. It would probably make sense though to just look at the current textbooks out there today (the most popular ones) and then work backwards from there. I think we'll get a good idea of the people who should be on there. For me, the people who come to mind are Forte, Babbitt, Perle, and Lewin as probably the most important people to include until we find out who survives the test of time. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Diminished unison

I'm not sure any of you saw this article diminished unison but I'm glad this thing isn't on the MT project. Why this page even exists is beyond me! Anyway, there's lots of fallout. I am going to propose the page for deletion. On the other hand, there needs to be an article created on augmented unison which currently redirects to semitone. While similar, the two are slightly different and warrant their own articles each. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It has several references ... but is not mentioned in Grove. Meanwhile, as what I hope will be a first step in clarifying the difference between functional/harmonic/melodic intervals and how those intervals might be tuned, I have moved what was at 'List of musical intervals' to List of pitch intervals, and started a list of the more common functional intervals, which I hope others will improve (it might eventually be more useful as a sortable table, perhaps?). I've not added the diminished unison to it! Nor have I added the list of pitch intervals to this project, not wanting to make that call. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
All references mention how there is no such thing (quotes included in the refs). If anything, what needs to happen is that a discussion of diminished unison should be in the augmented unison page, still to be written, describing how a diminished unison really is an augmented unison because a diminished unison isn't possible. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

As mentioned earlier our Assessment page is here. It explains the grading and gives some examples.

Currently {{music-theory-stub}} (164 articles) and Category:Stub-Class Music theory articles (91 articles) do not correspond. (Obviously they should be identical.) This can be remedied by a bot going through and adding Category:Stub-Class Music theory articles to all articles with the {{music-theory-stub}}.

Articles without the {{music-theory-stub}} (or any other assessment) can be marked as Category:Start-Class Music theory articles indicating a kind of minimum accomplishment for further checking later. Hope this is clear. --Kleinzach 09:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of the bot running through, but surely there are articles with the Category and not the stub designation as well, right? Can we go through and mark them all as stubs and then from there determine the class? (Although most of them are stubs). Devin.chaloux (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes you can — though of course the stubs have been checked by us and the category haven't. I think the category includes a lot of start class articles. --Kleinzach 07:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

New page listing?

On the Musical Theatre project, they have a page for new article creation, so that members can see and edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musical_Theatre/pages&redirect=no. Shouldn't we have something like this? -- kosboot (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We do, but it's empty. I created an article a few weeks ago, though, that I suppose could be added. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 03:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood. But I'm not sure I see the point when we have Category:WikiProject Music theory articles. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 03:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
But a category link merely lists the articles in the category. The point of the new pages link is that it shows one immediately what are the recently-created articles, and thereby has the potential to focus editing attention and energy on new articles. Such articles are pretty much lost in a category listing. -- kosboot (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Try this - Link is at the bottom of our project page. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Hm, I'm spoiled by the nice listing on the Musical Theatre project. Perhaps when people start creating articles we can think about it again. (I'm working on Heinrich Christian Koch). -- kosboot (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean now. Yikes - that's quite the thing they got there. It would take some time to work that in here. I'm busy this weekend but I may try to reconfigure our project page sooner than later so it can be more functional like the musical theatre one. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 05:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yikes? It's just a list of the new pages they've created - they're a fairly active group (less so in the summer) because musicals have lots of fans. The big advantage to that is that it immediately brings attention to newly created articles and because of the attention, can let members and interested parties start working on amending new articles as needed. Since some new articles have already been created, I'm going to go ahead an make such a list. Rather than concentrating on cleaning up, e.g. Schenkerian things, people mildly interested in the project can start start working on newborns. -- kosboot (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Managing the project: top down, bottom up or crabwise?

I see Category:Unassessed_Music_theory_articles is now empty: another milestone!

What next? One possibility would be to start with the best articles, say B-class and above, and give them rigorous written assessments. Another alternative would be to concentrate on the weakest articles, the stubs, trying to get them all up to 'Start class' by adding references, basic information etc. A third would be to work on subsets of articles that interest you personally, perhaps defined by particular categories. Or maybe some other plan? What do you think? --Kleinzach 16:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll personally like to see what the rest of you think. We have A LOT of stubs and A LOT of start class articles. --Devin.chaloux (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Getting rid of the stubs would probably be a good thing, at the same time i think more will get done if we in some way can work with according to our own interests. So i guess what i'm saying is: Let's save the boring stubs for last... Niklas RTalkpage 15:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Working on the stubs would probably be the best over-all strategy for now, but how exactly would we go about it (i.e., what stubs first)? —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 00:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a matter of informing the group which ones an individual wants to work on and just doing it. ;) --kosboot (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I second this. I've got some articles I'd like to work on personally but they need some major major work. I've listed them in my user page. The augmentation one is marked in our cleanup list specifically. That article is just HORRENDOUS. Anyway, I stumbled upon some music theorist's pages today and am going to add them to our list right now! --Devin.chaloux (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I added Diminution to the project (and to the clean-up list) today. It was in a similar state. I have done a minimal re-organise there, it needs a lot more. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Would it make sense to make a page where we can sign in and discuss the projects that we are working on in a cleaner fashion than this talk page? Something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Music Theory/Current Projects? It wouldn't be mandated, only something obligatory, but this would be a good way to make sure we're not running over each other. At the same time, we can report what we are doing if we do significant chunks and can be a way to expedite reviewing over newly written articles. What do you think? --Devin.chaloux (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Might be better to have it on the mainpage under "Goals", instead of a subpage. Or have both, with the subpage for discussion. You might want look at what other projects do in this regard. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 04:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I have looked at other projects. They don't have anything like that - but that shouldn't stop us. I'd like to keep it off the mainpage just so we can have that be informative for prospective members. I'd rather have business tucked away somewhere, but easily accessible. I'd link this "Current Projects" page on our main page. I like it because we can have page/project specific discussions without blowing up this talk page or the article's talk page with mindless banter. (I'm not saying we're all mindless though :P) Anyway, our project mainpage needs a super facelift, but I'm not sure where I'm going to start with that. For now, it's functional, and we've got bigger fish to fry! --Devin.chaloux (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
A project subpage with a name like Wikipedia:WikiProject Music Theory/Current Projects, or Wikipedia:WikiProject Music Theory/Collaboration of the month is certainly possible, though it may get overlooked by new or infrequent members. Another possibility is to use a box appearing either on the project or the talk page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera have two boxes like this on their project page: one for 'Composer of the Month' and one for 'Opera of the Month'. If the text is reasonably short this can work well. Other projects have had 'To do' lists, 'Assessment request' boxes etc. on their talk pages.
BTW: A fast way to process stubs — if you are minded to attempt this — is to go through them making sure that each one has a reference, in addition to being coherent and in good English. (I don't like a checklist approach to long, developed articles, but it works well for stubs/start class pages.) --Kleinzach 14:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I really admire the opera project's coordination with composer/operas of the month. There are so many advantages to it. That said, I infrequently adhere to it, usually enhancing/creating articles that I happen to be dealing with at the moment. But I can see that it would be a good hook for potential contributors. -- kosboot (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea of the To-Do box, but I think we need a platform where we can actively discuss several of these projects in a single place that isn't this talk page. Maybe I'm getting too complicated with it, but we should have this talk page be here for discussions like this rather than bouncing ideas on how we should tackle improving another page (and other discussion maybe not appropriate for the article talk page...if one even exists!) — Devin.chaloux (chat) 23:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Statistics?

Index · Statistics · Log
Music theory articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 2 3 5
GA 1 2 4 7
B 5 6 10 12 18 51
C 14 9 41 86 80 230
Start 2 31 47 182 335 597
Stub 2 8 82 182 274
List 2 3 6 12 23
NA 1 2 7 753 763
Assessed 21 54 116 379 753 627 1,950
Unassessed 6 141 147
Total 21 54 116 385 753 768 2,097
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 5,716 Ω = 4.91

So, does the project want to display statistics like these on its front page? If we add an importance parameter to the project banner the table will show that too. I also wonder if the Attention parameter should be activated so that articles needing immediate attention can be so marked, and made to show up in a dedicated category (which could be added to the to-do list)? Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea. I'm currently trying to reconfigure the main page - I'm slowly working on it in a sandbox. I've been looking at the source of some other project pages and using their ideas to come up with a sleek design that would be suitable for our project. Currently our page has a lot of information, but it is very cluttered. Some tables will help that, but I'm a bit rusty on my HTML, so I'll be practicing a little in a sandbox before I implement. Any suggestions of content change on the page would be welcomed, and I think this particular one is a very good suggestion. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 23:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
In terms of the attention parameter - it should be used, but I'm not sure going through all of the pages at the moment may be the best use of our time (since we just did that not too long ago.) Maybe over time, since I don't have many sources available, I'll go ahead and do it myself... — Devin.chaloux (chat) 23:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I think activating the attention parameter should be quite straightforward - I might even have a go at it. It only needs to be used to mark articles that direly, obviously need immediate attention, such as Andalusian cadence, to name but one. Setting an importance level for each and every article would, otoh, be a lot of work. On sources, what with one thing and another, I have a LOT, so if you need something in particular there's just a tiny chance I might actually have it - ask any time, OK? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm just away from where most of my sources are. I've got them...they're just not next to me at the moment, and I prefer not to link ancient theory texts from Googlebooks. We may get into sticky ground on some of these subjects. For instance, Andalusian cadence is not as frequent a term as one may think, and the article is respectable. I'm not sure I personally would categorize that as an article of "high" importance. Exposition (music) on the other hand... — Devin.chaloux (chat) 00:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I've thought about an importance ranking, too, but it would be something of a waste of time to go through and assign importance rankings to all of the articles in the project scope. But, on the other hand, it might be helpful in determining which articles the project might need to focus on more (like Music theory, Tonality, Atonality, Harmony, Musical form, etc.). So, if we do add an importance parameter to the project banner, it would be better to be selective and mark only the high importance articles, at least to begin with.
An attention parameter and an associated Category:Music theory articles needing attention might be helpful in compiling a better cleanup list, which, in turn, could be used to start getting more actual work done. —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 01:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, rightly or wrongly, I have gone ahead and activated both. At least, I think I have! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Good. I've gone through a few articles and marked them for importance. We now need to add an importance scale to the Assessment page, though. What would be the basic definitions for the importance rankings? Top-importance should obviously include Music theory, Harmony, Counterpoint, Tonality, Atonality, Musical analysis, etc. For high-importance things like Schenkerian analysis (and perhaps also Schenker himself and a few other very important theorists), Chord (music), Sonata form(?), Exposition (music). Mid-importance, Augmentation (music), Diminution, the articles on the keys and intervals (?). Low-importance, what?. Any thoughts—or objections? —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 04:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a good question, of course. Here's a basic guide I found on the WikiProject Psychology page, where there is also a much more detailed chart with examples:

The article's importance, regardless of its quality
Top Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia
High Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
Mid Subject fills in more minor details
Low Subject is peripheral knowledge, possibly trivial

Perhaps that gives us a starting-point? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Importance scale

I see the importance scale mentioned above. This is just to say that some projects, particularly the smaller ones, don't bother with this aspect of quality control. It's another project chore and IMO it's only useful if you need to prioritize work on certain 'important' articles on a permanent basis. (The Classical Music, Composers, Opera projects etc. don't use the scale.) --Kleinzach 04:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Project page facelift

OK - So here's what I got so far...

Please comment on what you think, especially improvements. You can do that here or on the sandbox discussion page. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 16:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Very nice - much clearer. If I wanted to quibble, I'd suggest making the right column a little wider (so as to increase its prominence), but that's really minor and possibly not even necessary. Lovely job! -- kosboot (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll try my best. Sometimes when I futz with the codes though it goes all whack :P — Devin.chaloux (chat) 18:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Did it! — Devin.chaloux (chat) 19:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Bravo - very nice. -- kosboot (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Mmm. My taste may be unusual, but it does remind me a bit of the Hip hop page. Maybe it could be a little lighter in mood? --Kleinzach 04:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes; it's a little bold -- some softening may be in order. Powers T 17:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I was trying to go neutral colors, but something that looks good. I fear for making it too much like the other project pages, which use a powdery blue. I'll see what I can do in the upcoming days, but if any of you have samples you like, let me know! — Devin.chaloux (chat) 23:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Compliments on the layout, looks very good. My only gripe would be with the "burlywood" colour for header backgrounds, which doesn't quite click for me. I tried "#F3F3EE;" instead, and found the result a bit less in-yer-face. Of course it's just a matter of personal taste. The hexadecimal colour parameters are almost infinitely variable, so it shouldn't be too hard to find one that is pleasing but not overused elsewhere. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not having anything better to do, I came up with a few variants of the welcome banner, here. I personally like the grey background, #8080CC, and #AAAAEE best. Making the text white really softens it, too, especially in the lighter colors. —Mahlerlover1(converse) 04:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I hate green! Ugh! The white on black is very dramatic; otherwise I'd go for one of the 8080AA or 8080CC versions. -- kosboot (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey, with the burlywood - I was just trying to put my countless hours in front of HGTV to good work and try to pick a neutral color for everyone to live with :P — Devin.chaloux (chat) 06:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I like the white lettering on the grey background, tho it's not very colorful. -- kosboot (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
WikiFun Police has a (surprisingly) low-key grey design. (Irish music has a well-balanced blue background, but maybe it's too generic?) --Kleinzach 03:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The more I look at them, the more I like the black and grey backgrounds. Do we really need to be "colorful"? After all, one doesn't usually write music in bright pastel blues or pinks, so wouldn't a black/white/grey color scheme in some ways be more appropriate for this project? Anyway, I removed the green colors from the running. —Mahlerlover1(converse) 05:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Just seen your test page, Yes, I like the grey. --Kleinzach 11:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't gotten around to working on it much. Currently in the process of moving my brother into a new apartment and free time is limited. Where do we currently stand on everything? — Devin.chaloux (chat) 16:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well—if I'm counting right—, it seems we have three "votes" for a grey (#808080) background, with no major complaints about the nice layout you designed. So, should we now see if the two match up well? —Mahlerlover1(converse) 02:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
What do people think of the blues and greens they use on the main page of Wikipedia. Just want one more pass before I change it to the grey. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 16:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I still dislike green. But I like the blue and the purple (when you scroll down). I'd say just do it - if people really object, it can be changed. But I'd think that people are more concerned with editing articles than virtual plastic surgery. -- kosboot (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I was just trying to keep myself busy before I went back to where my books and resources are. I'll make the change in the next few days (hopefully) and then we can start realigning where our greatest needs are. If you have any suggestions, let's start a new section in the discussion. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 03:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Project symbol/time for a change?

This project's symbol is a page of Bach manuscript. On the Template:WikiProject Music theory it is (arguably) reduced to a grey blur. Would it be a good idea look for a someone a bit clearer, sharper, perhaps even more exciting, more representative of the project? What do people think? --Kleinzach 00:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is reduced to a grey blur. It's a low-quality image, so probably not worth spending time on digital clean-up. Also I can't see what it has to do with theory. I'd rather see a Guidonian hand, or a portrait of Zarlino (is there a good one?), or the frontispiece of the Fontegara, or the famous curlicue from the title-page of the WTC, or indeed just about anything! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
A Guidonian hand would be a good symbol, though there might be better options out there. Does anyone know why the Bach lute prelude manuscript was chosen in the first place? —Mahlerlover1(converse) 07:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I also like the idea of a Guidonian hand. As far as the Bach, remember this project was started by someone who was banned from Wikipedia for being a sockpuppet, so I wouldn't worry too much about his/her intent. -- kosboot (talk) 12:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there would be no objection to a Guidonian hand. Kleinzach, if you want to go ahead and change that, feel free to. If you do though, if you can just drop me a message with a link to the image you used, I'll try to incorporate it on the new project page for cohesion. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 04:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A Guidonian hand is a great idea, but unfortunately neither of the images on the Guidonian hand article are scalable. File:Guidonian hand.jpg becomes just another grey blur at a small size. Does anyone know of a sharper, better image? --Kleinzach 02:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Note from the coordinator

Hi everyone. I hope everyone's Wiki-ing is going well. (I'm hoping I can get things going myself.) Over the next two weeks or so, I think it would be wise to review the general list of articles under our project and highlight the most important ones and tag them with importance tags. Some of these articles will take a long time to really edit, but some just need a little love and research and they'll be in good shape. If anyone feels like spearheading this miniproject, or contributing, feel free to post under this topic. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 04:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I've put together a new version of the layout. It still is a process in work, but it is almost there. I'm seeking some guidance on how to best incorporate an "Article of the Month" banner. It is turning out to be a bit more difficult than I anticipated! Anyway, let me know what you think! User:Devin.chaloux/MTsandbox — Devin.chaloux (chat) 01:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. Have you solved the "Article of the Month" banner thing or do you still have a problem with it? --Kleinzach 00:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I think what I'm going to do is make a section on the right side bar at the top and just link it instead of trying to work a template. It's easier to manage. So tomorrow is when I'm going to make the switch once I code that in. And then we're in business! — Devin.chaloux (chat) 12:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Things are very quiet here. Any problems? --Kleinzach 06:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Haha, sorry there! Yeah, I've noticed many of the people we had kicking around in the beginning of the rival have seemed to have left. I, for the last few weeks, have been literally going nonstop with several papers and juggling Ph.D applications at the same time. But I've been checking in to see if there has been any progress. I'm planning tonight to shift over to the new layout and then make an article of the month section. I'm hoping to start editing soon - probably later this weekend. But I'm not sure where the others went! — Devin.chaloux (chat) 22:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm still here, just a bit uninspired at the moment Niklas RTalkpage 00:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
We've all been like that at times, haven't we? No worries! — Devin.chaloux (chat) 01:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
I've spent the past 1.5 months organizing and seeing through a Wikipedia Loves Libraries editation - and it was great experience! It would be absolutely fantastic if WP:Music Theory could organize something like that to kickstart work on the articles and get more people interested. -- kosboot (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
For those who don't know what those are, take a look at: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Libraries and the specific event I was involved in: Wikipedia:The Musical. It would be great to organize something like this for those interested in music theory (presumably around a library that has lots of music theory texts) - and the event showed me that you don't even need to be present - you can have people capturing text at the library, and remote users editing the text suitable for articles. I find the possibilities entrancing. -- kosboot (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music_theory/Archive_2&oldid=647785636"