Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

I would like to start this next month in October. This will be our page that we will highlight that needs attention and should be collaborated on. I think it would be a good way to spur better quality articles, especially where we need it.

If people want to rank articles that they think need attention the most, I'll choose one to start next month! — Devin.chaloux (chat) 14:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to participate (if it's a field where I have any glimmering of understanding), but don't know which article to suggest. If there is really no other suggestion, I will put forward Silvestro Ganassi, whom I personally think of as significant as the first of the "diminutionists", and maybe as the first person to try to notate rubato. But I'm sure there are many core articles that need attention first. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate Retrograde inversion. —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 08:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why! I'd support that nomination if I hadn't just looked at Retrograde (music), which possibly needs even more urgent attention? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The opera group often has multiple articles of the month. So why can't we have a person And a topic of the month - and have a process of nomination (also like on the opera project) whereby people can suggest things for the future. -- kosboot (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the OPERAtion (see what I did there? :P) is much larger than ours. But I'll consider it! — Devin.chaloux (chat) 20:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Retrograde (music), so yes. So we have: Retrograde (music) and Retrograde inversion. Supertonic and Synthetic chord might be worth considering, too. What does His Most Serene Coordinatorness ;) say? —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 17:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a joint project on Retrograde and Retrograde inversion would be a good idea. Hopefully I'll find some free time in the next few days to figure out how to put in a box to the new layout to highlight the Article of the Month and update that. In the mean time, if nothing comes of that, I'll make sure to put a link on the front of the page. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 04:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about a process for submitting nominations for future "Article of the Month"s? -- kosboot (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may make a page for nominations or I may just ask a week beforehand. Still working out the basics. If you have a suggestion, feel free! — Devin.chaloux (chat) 11:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the page or section devoted to nominations. That way members can work out the future as they work on any Wikipedia page. Others can see what's potentially in the pipeline, and it might be an incentive to them to join the project. (You'll note that the Opera Project has like nominations 3 months in advance.) -- kosboot (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: For the article of the month, can it be 2 articles, one on a person, and the other on a topic (perhaps from different time periods) - just to make it more enticing for people. -- kosboot (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. I hope to edit both retrograde and retrograde inversion soon with my Straus book by my side. Submit a suggestion for a person. The link is under the AOTM. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 00:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made 2 nominations (a topic and a theorist, of different historical periods) for January. Hope some will chime in. -- kosboot (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wunderbar! I think tomorrow I'm going to take some time to finally get to a few of these pages. Applications are finally wrapping up! More suggestions would be welcomed! — Devin.chaloux (chat) 06:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I am suspending AOTM. It seems like we're on our own projects right now. I put that in place to get this place active again and it seems like it is starting to pick up in recent months without this. Keep doing the good work! :) — Devin.chaloux (chat) 13:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just created an article for Adele T. Katz. Based on recent discussions, I'm wondering if there should be a category for women music theorists. I lean toward yes. Any thoughts? -- kosboot (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate question is how many female theorists do we have listed? I'd say yes if we have 5 (or at least close to it). Otherwise, until we get to that number, then I'd say no. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 03:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, my personal opinion is that distinctions such as sex, age, religion, skin colour or indeed hair colour are irrelevant to the ability to think and write about music. Should there be a category for red-headed music theorists? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried adding my new article Adele T. Katz to the template - and succeeded in eliminating the box for new articles altogether. It's clearly there in edit mode, but not when saved. Is there any way to simplify this template, maybe so that each box could get it's own edit or something? -- kosboot (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the difficult things about this. It's not really HTML being used, maybe I should write up a little section to show what I mean. The problem lies in the bullet and I haven't necessarily figured it out yet either...to switch it back into HTML space. I'll futz around with it over the next few days and if I figure it out I'll let you know. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 12:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, figured it out. It wasn't the bullet. When you added the little note in the section that doesn't appear, you deleted the end part of the code that closes that idea "-->" and for that reason, the whole section wasn't showing up until that instance happened again. Fixed now. Let me know if anything else is confusing. I added spaces between sections so people could more clearly see the divisions between the different sections. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 12:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had just pushed it down, but apparently not. So thanks for your help. Meanwhile, it's almost the end of October and I'm still thinking of retrogrades... --kosboot (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all are. That permutations article is proving to be difficult to decide its fate. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 15:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's just a little bit in New Grove on it - but I just found a large article on it in "Musical Morphology." I'll see if there's anything that can be mined. Meanwhile, the Grove article (by William Drabkin) reminded me that it's really just cancrizans which I remember we used to discuss in my days of studying Renaissance music. Perhaps there are some sources worth looking at there. -- 16:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC) kosboot (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been inactive here. I must admit I hit a sort of block when I read those few lines in Grove. They surely cannot be anywhere near right? There must be examples of retrograde and retrograde inversion outside puzzle canons? Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge or reference library to look for them, but would expect there to be myriad examples in Classical/Romantic-period thematic development. The CLARA theme in Schumann 4, for example, does that not get reversed at some point? I'm fairly certain there's a passage of retrograde "Arsin et thesin" in Purcell's "Three in one upon a ground" that has only recently been satisfactorily resolved (but maybe that's just another puzzle canon?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are more (I'm thinking of a Haydn minuet/trio from a piano sonata, but I think the idea is that in this period they are not much more than curiosities, games, jokes, whatever, whereas in late romantic and Bach & earlier, they're something more. Anyway, back to the sources. -- kosboot (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There definitely are more examples. Bach's D# minor fugue Book 1 has quite a bit if I remember correctly. There definitely have to be other examples. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 03:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add them - I finally removed the redirect so now there is the beginning of a separate article on Retrograde (music). -- kosboot (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now the article Retrograde (music) exists. :) Next? -- kosboot (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:) Very nice. Since I uploaded the AOTM late, I made both of them for November too. Should I switch it tomorrow? — Devin.chaloux (chat) 00:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not too many people from this project have worked on this Article of the Month. But with the help of someone involved with WP:Music, I think we've doing a pretty good job thus far - maybe even meriting a C rating or so (there was no separate article previously). Have a look if you have the inclination. -- kosboot (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, no kidding! That's great. I didn't see the changes. I really wish I could get into this editing but I literally have never been busier in my life. I can't wait for December! The permutations article could use some additions from Tymoczko's new book. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 00:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Sorry I haven't been around lately. A C rating does seem in order. —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 02:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Im trying to find interwikilinks for the Swedish article sv:Tonsteg, wich i would translate as "scale-step" with the meaning it has in this article. The article Scale-step, however, is about a specificly schenkerian notion... Does any native english-speaker have an idea what the article for the more basic concept could be called? (If there isn't one we really should write it, and move the schenkerian one to Stufe). Regards Niklas R^Talk_page 23:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you mean: Degree (music)? -- kosboot (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. Im looking for the word for the distance between two successive notes in a scale, the common denominator between half step and whole step. Niklas R^Talk_page 00:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now it occurs to me that the common denominator is step (music)... It's not perfect but it will have to do. Thanks for aiding the thought process! Niklas R^Talk_page 00:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you were right before: scale-step is the normal term for that, and the Schenkerian meaning should probably be moved elsewhere or take a secondary position on that page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the stub assessment lists, I saw that col legno is part of this project. If someone could tell me how col legno is an element of music theory I would listen, but otherwise I think it should be removed to the general WikiProject Classical Music. There are a number of similar articles - perhaps members of the project can occasionally go through and weed the list to focus what the project is about. -- kosboot (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to me that "music theory" often just refers to the technical part of music in general, so all notational aspects and terminology fall under it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's definition of music theory is "how it works". To my mind, there's a difference between terminology and topics that require explanation of behavioral characteristics. I've been bothered that articles like "A flat" are part of this project - I mean, what can one say about A flat? Ok, so "col legno" -- an article would provide a translation, history, programmatic effects, and perhaps contemporary modifications. Is that really music theory? Seems to me it should be a "terminology" subset of the the WP Classical Music project. Unless this project wants to consider all terminology part of its scope. -- kosboot (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this project doesn't include terminology. There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Music terminology but it's inactive so I think col legno would be best with CM. --Kleinzach 00:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now changed the banner. --Kleinzach 02:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, con legno really has no business in the music theory department. If it is, then we'd have to start adding things like tremolo and allegro and who knows? Our team is too small to incorporate something like that and we're already overwhelmed as it is with the pages that are directly affected by it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devin.chaloux (talk • contribs) 22:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey all! So I'm really bad at this editing thing - or maybe the motivation. I was most inspired last year when I had a partner to work with on certain articles and we pounded them out. Therefore, I'm just going to open it up to anyone...does anyone want to work with me on some article. I know I'd be more productive other than serving the administrative role that I currently am now. Anyway, if you're interested, hit up my talk page or reply here. :) — Devin.chaloux (chat) 22:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what Article of the Month is for? I've already made my suggestions. :) -- kosboot (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if we want to work on other stuff too :P — Devin.chaloux (chat) 03:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, depending on what the topic is, I'd be game. -- kosboot (talk) 11:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking to tag along. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 16:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For AOTM I suggested Anonymous IV and all-interval hexachord. Do either of those interest you? Or something closer to...? -- kosboot (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know much about Anonymous IV other than the super basics. But I could work a little on all-interval hexachord. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 04:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say in most cases I'm not up on each detail. That certainly was the case with retrograde (music). But with the help of User:Jerome_Kohl, that article is now better than in any dictionary or encyclopedia. I barely remember what I learned about the all-interval hexachord, but I'm sure by the end of January I'll know a lot more! -- kosboot (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year everyone! I have updated the Articles of the Month for January. We will be working on All-interval hexachord and Anonymous IV. If you have suggestions for future months, please drop a suggestion on the link below the articles of the month on our project's main page! Thanks! — Devin.chaloux (chat) 22:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to understand the exact relationship between the following fields:

• Biomusicology (a completely unfamiliar term to me)
• Cognitive musicology (defined similarly by Wikipedia to computational musicology)
• Cognitive neuroscience of music a.k.a. Music and the brain.
• Computational musicology (defined similarly by Wikipedia to cognitive musicology)
• Music cognition
• Music psychology
• Perception and production of music (probably should be merged to cognitive neuroscience of music)
• Psychoacoustics

Ideally, I would like the lede of each of these articles to (briefly) discuss its relationship to the other articles. There are also some potential merges here. What most concerns me most is that there may be some original research going on, so I'm hoping that someone here has an expert opinion or some sources that might help. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you can think of a better place to ask this question, let me know. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to being biased, but with the exception maybe of Computational musicology (terrible article!), I wouldn't consider any of these subjects to be music theory (despite the banner being on their talk pages). For me, music theory is understanding the phenomenology of why music works based on the music itself - how it behaves, etc. Once you combine that with other areas (e.g. cognition), for me, it's something beyond music theory. As small as this group is, I don't believe any equivalent Wikipedia "musicology" group has come about yet. Perhaps try posting in the general WP Classical music group? Although right now they're fighting about naming conventions of Beethoven sonatas, so perhaps wait till that subsides. -- kosboot (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these articles are not really music theory ones. I suppose by default they belong in Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, though the editors there are less likely to be interested in them than the people involved with cognition, psychology etc. Nevertheless they are important articles, of course. --Kleinzach 01:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that music cognition falls under the music theory bubble in American universities. I self-admittedly know nothing about music cognition (and I want to keep it that way). I like the idea, but I am just terrible at research like that. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 12:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See here - comments welcome.--Smerus (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, I notice that the project tag includes an "Attention" parameter, but I wondered what, if anything, that parameter does. I've just marked Consecutive fifths as needing attention, but then wondered whether that makes it show up in some category somewhere, or if it needs to be manually added to the clean-up list? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It goes into Category:Music theory articles needing attention. —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 00:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does; and the category is in the clean-up list. And since I have edited that category in the past, I really should have been able to remember all that, brain has obviously turned wholly to mush. Thanks for reminding me, anyway. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to do some research on the article of the month all-interval hexachord but could find very little. What I did find is really better understood in the context of all those all-interval chords. So my current thinking is that all these stubby articles would be better suited if they were combined into a single article with sections. I do think it's unfortunate that the creator of that article, Hyacinth, seems to go around creating stubs without doing the work needed to bring it beyond a stub. -- kosboot (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I see what you mean. I guess really it's only a blurb in textbooks. Unless there has been a thesis or dissertation on the subject, it really will not be expanded further. So are you thinking to combine them into an All interval (music) page? — Devin.chaloux (chat) 12:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if that is the case, I think we could make that the February 2012 article of the month.

Well, I wasn't exactly volunteering to do it ;-) but it seemed that it mostly made sense in the context of the other all-interval chords. I would like to see the publication of Elliot Carter's Harmony Book, for I suspect that the intro to that must have something about it. And right now I'm busy working on 2 music articles (tho not music theory). -- kosboot (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I confess to having forgotten about this, but seeing that User:Hyacinth asked for reasons for the merger Justlettersandnumbers proposed on the Augmented unison talk page brought it back to my attention so I thought I'd remind everyone here. —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 05:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be good to have some other eyes on that page. I made the merge to the best of my ability, and split off a separate stub for the Augmented octave, which for some reason redirected there; but Hyacinth seems unhappy with what I've done, doesn't respond in discussion, and keeps adding stuff that looks to me a bit like original thought. So perhaps others would take a look, offer some comment? Don't we have anything more important to think about than this? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Ragtime progression. Hyacinth (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of this before. Why do we need to check this out? — Devin.chaloux (chat) 13:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago I moved this list to its present title, in order to be able to create a simpler List of musical intervals, with the idea that there should be somewhere a reader could go to look for the intervals that are likely actually to be encountered in the lifetime of an ordinary (Western) musician, which I attempted to define as "commonly encountered harmonic or melodic intervals between pairs of notes". I don't know if that was good thinking or not. However, that purpose has been somewhat undermined by the subsequent addition of other putative or endangered intervals such as the neutral second and the well-known diminished unison'. I removed them, but sure enough, User:Hyacinth has replaced them, with the edit summary "defeats the point of a list". I disagree; the point of this list is not defeated by keeping within its terms of definition. Does that definition need to be reworded? Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyacinth is right. It needs to be complete. A selective list needs to have reliable sources backing up reasons for others' exclusion, in this case can you find an RS that describes intervals "likely actually to be encountered in the lifetime of an ordinary (Western) musician"? If not, it's best to leave it as it is....but if so (and it has to be MULTIPLE sources) then making some indication of this is better, not just deleting the more rare ones wholesale. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, predictably, I disagree. Of course, if you are right, then there is no point having this list at all, and it should be merged into the List of pitch intervals, where there is such a magnificent profusion of "intervals", some real, some pure fantasy, as to make it essentially useless for all practical purposes. Obviously, finding sources that mention the ordinary intervals but don't mention the diminished unison or neutral second is hardly a problem, there must be thousands. But that isn't really the point. What I'm looking for is some advice on how to tighten the definition, or rename the list, in order to allow it to fulfill its purpose - always assuming that that purpose seems to others to be worthwhile. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in assuming the point of this list is to include only the basic, "garden variety" intervals of the chromatic scale, i.e., no quarter (or less) tone intervals, no intervals in tuning systems other than 12-TET? If that is the case, then you were right to remove neutral second from the list. If not, perhaps it should be? —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 08:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That seems stupid in my opinion. Maybe it's best to divide the list into pc12, pc18, and pc24 space, that way you can put the microtonal intervals where they belong. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 13:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyacinth has now removed all the neutral intervals from the list. —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 10:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Supertonic chromatic chord is listed at Redirects for discussion. Some input from people with some musical knowledge would be helpful. --Salix (talk): 21:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an often used term, but I believe this is how some theory textbooks first describe the V/V (the most common secondary dominant) as a supertonic chord that is chromatically inflected. I should know this since I just did a textbook review on several chapters. I think the Benjamin/Horvit/Nelson describes it this way. Maybe the Benward? It's not a super common term, but I don't think it's necessarily a bad term either. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 13:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you could add this to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 11#Supertonic chromatic chord that would be helpful.--Salix (talk): 14:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 15:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carpenters chord. Hyacinth (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh brother - like the Carpenters were the first one to use this? Unless someone provides more than 1 citation, I'd delete this article. -- kosboot (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh cool! It's just a V9sus4. Please...this was probably used in the music of Chopin. I nominate it for deletion. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 13:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd even say Bach (cf. the dominant harmony leading to the tonic pedal at the end of the C major Prelude, book I of WTC, though that doesn't have a ninth and the fourth resolves). Definitely not worthy of an article to itself. —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 18:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone! When you're browsing through the pages associated with our WikiProject, if you come across a page with examples featuring faulty voice-leading, please include them in the list below. I've just starting noticing its a real issue and I would like to get this resolved as soon as possible. The most common errors are unresolved tendency tones (sevenths and leading tones). When adding new ones, if you can just sign with a timestamp next to them using five tildes (~~~~~), that would be excellent. Thanks! — Devin.chaloux (chat) 18:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what you're talking about, but wouldn't it be better to list the images themselves, rather than the articles in which they appear? (An image could be included in more than one article.) —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 19:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. These articles (and I am sure more) have multiple graphics with bad voice-leading. I think the list could get incredibly long if we include images. At this point, I was just hoping to take note of some of these articles that use abstract voice-leading examples, just to raise awareness. However, if you think it would be ultimately beneficial to list all images, then we can do that. Any opinions on this community? — Devin.chaloux (chat) 19:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 19:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to keep Signbot from autosigning additions to the list? —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 20:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Secondary dominant 18:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Cadence (music) 18:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• Subdominant 13:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Dominant (music) 13:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone mind patrolling the Leading-tone triad page I created today? (On the talk page, click mark as patrolled.) — Devin.chaloux (chat) 15:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —Mahlerlover1^(converse) 21:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the page was deleted/merged by User:Hyacinth. Lovely. (For clarification, deleted the disamb. for leading-tone chord and merged leading-tone triad with diminished triad — Devin.chaloux (chat) 02:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I am sensing that there are too many pages for chord nomenclature. I think this is part of the reason for the merging of leading-tone triad by User:Hyacinth. This may be a project that several people will need to help on. Regarding Template:Degrees, there are seven degrees noted. See here:

Tonic, Supertonic, Mediant, etc...not only refer to the scale degree, but also the chord that is built on these degrees. What I propose is a cleanup of these articles so that they actually reflect that. The worst of these is the leading-tone article which is just an incredible mess. Then, we can create pages for Tonic triad, Supertonic triad, Supertonic seventh chord, etc...to redirect to the appropriate section in these larger articles. This should solve the problem of too many stubs but also covering the separate terminology for the triads and seventh chords.

It may be worthwhile to create a separate "list of" page for the triads and seventh chords. Several problem arise from this proposal. How do we deal with modal mixture chords, more specifically, the Neapolitan chord. bVI, bIII, bVII can be covered under submediant, mediant, and subtonic respectively. But, b2 cannot fit into that template. I don't think it is necessary to include it in the template as it would only be confusing.

I would like your opinions about such a proposal. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 02:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this personally, but we already have tonic chord and probably others as redirects. Hyacinth (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the redirects. I'm talking about rewriting the tonic article so that it clearly is demarcated as two separate entities: the scale degree and the chord. All articles need this type of revision, in my opinion. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes would be appreciated at Dynamics (music), where a dynamic IP user keeps changing the definitions of forte and piano and their derivatives. It hasn't quite risen to the level of needing semiprotection, imo, but I dislike being the one doing most of the reverting. Relevant discussion here. Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone - please keep a look out for the scale degree/scale-degree difference in the articles. As far as I remember, scale degree is acceptable if it is the noun of the sentence; but if it is used as an adjective (i.e. scale-degree number), then use the hyphen. Anyone correct me on this if you think otherwise. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 13:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been long known that Wikipedia:WikiProject Music terminology has been inactive for sometime. However, they have established a good set of ground rules for articles in music. I propose that we adopt their terminology and list it on our homepage. Several sections may need to be updated, but on the whole, I think it is a great start. The list can be found here. At the same time, we should also adopt Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) though, several things are not mentioned that are covered in the Music Terminology WikiProject. I would like to vote on this. I'll keep it open for two weeks, so some of the inactive members can vote on the subject. (While you're at it, please comment on the proposal about reworking the scale-degree pages.) Thanks! — Devin.chaloux (chat) 06:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiProject! I'd like your feedback on my proposed merger of Ragtime progression into Circle progression. Please contribute here: Talk:Circle_progression#Nomenclature_and_Chromatic_Version — Devin.chaloux (chat) 11:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good idea to me. -- kosboot (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the discussion there or here? Hyacinth (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read above, it's on the talk page of the proposed merged page (per Wikipedia guidelines). I just noted the merger here for feedback from the community with an interest in the subject. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 04:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to have the Music terminology project become a task force of the Music Theory project? Dominiktesla (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin Professor William Sethares could use some more editing. Good-faith editors have used primary sources for the article, and a bit of effort should be able to find secondary sources. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being pretty acquainted with the field, I don't think he has the name recognition that would warrant immediate attention to that article. There are many more pages in dire need of attention before this one. — Devin.chaloux (chat) 04:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]