Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory

Stopping

Thank you for your good work. Kiefer . Wolfowitz 15:12, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory

question

Question: Is this a typo? In the I-vi-ii-V turnaround with the approach chord in G, the notation seems to be D # Major 7 instead of D # 7. Thanks for clarifying. I do not know how else to ask this question other than posting here. [User: bgranat; Date: August 4, 2013].

What is the context for this quote/question? - kosboot (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The context shown by grenades (see main page) is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approach_chord, which does look problematic. This chord finds D # 7 reads D # -Fx-A # -Cx, with the seventh major. The chords of the previous approach are such that the seventh can be taken simultaneously as the main note for the following chords - the chords of this approach are written half-step diatonic over the one in which they complete them. The seventh minor on D # will produce the same effect on the next D chord, but for the fact that the chord approach here is a half step chromatic above the following. Does this justify Cx? I want to know... - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Re

Hi WikiProject Music theory. I noticed the recent edits to Re. I do not know enough about music to know if the edit is true, but if it's true, I wonder if Re (not music) (which currently redirects to D (musical notes)) should be redirected to Re instead, or maybe even changed to disambiguation page. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The edits are correct. I do not understand why you want Re (musical note) diverted to Re. Users who have reached Re (musical notes) may already know what they want and send them off the main page. RE disambiguation takes them even further. - kosboot (talk) 00:29, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

I mistakenly think the updated text shows that "Re (musical)" can actually refer to two different things, but I now see that it's just two different ways to describe the same thing. We apologize for any inconvenience. Incidentally, editing to Re has been restored. DH85868993 (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

To do list?

Does the main page default not include the Activity list? Is there nothing else to do? - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Some time ago, we realized that there are very few active members who have a "task list" that does not help, and that members just have to do what they can and bring up problems when they appear. - kosboot (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

False alias for large scale Neapolitan

The Neapolitan scale articles include the phrase "and Neapolitan major can also be called Lydia's large scale" but this is almost certainly an error; the author may mean the main Locrian scale, an article which states that "The main scale of Locrian is the fifth mode of the Neapolitan scale." I've added a sentence that connects the Neapolitan major to the main article of Locrian, but it would be better to remove the "Lydian major" alias confusing if there is an agreement that it was a mistake. Victimofleisure (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This might get deleted as an unsupported statement. Perhaps you can add the necessary template quotes as a coming warning. - kosboot (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but there is a problem: the wrong statement has a quote. Unless someone has a copy of "The Guitar Grimoire Progressions & amp; Improvisation" by Adam Kadmon, I have no easy way to check if the error is the author of the article, or Kadmon's. Is there a procedure for this situation? - Victimofleisure (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You can ask the author who entered the statement twice , User: Hyacinth. - Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In this case I will point one to the quoted source: Kadmon, Adam (1998). The Guitar Grimoire Progressions & amp; Improvisation , p.280. ISBN: 0825831970. Hyacinth (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It probably does not really matter. Hyacinth (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the statement in question, but why is the link to Hungary's gypsy scale also deleted? The linkage is true and I feel useful. It just needs to be clarified, e.g. The 4th mode of Neapolitan Minor is also known as Aeolian # 4. But I understand the quote problem; clearly WP can not be a quote for himself. --Victimofleisure (talk) 02:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have notified Users: Hyacinth from this discussion. --209.6.41.166 (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

new online edition of Tinctoris

May appeal to the group: http://earlymusictheory.org/Tinctoris/- kosboot (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

src: thinking.is.ed.ac.uk

Submission afC

Wikipedia: Articles for making/Chordioid. Greetings, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:49, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

Back

Hello, all. I think to go back, mostly to focus on the list of music theorists, make some stubs and expand other pages. I'm wondering if any of you are interested in joining in for fun. - Devin.chaloux (chat) 00:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Count me in - kosboot (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Me too. - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Enharmonicism

After the previous discussion, I saw most (or perhaps all) Wikipedia articles related to, say, 'Diatonic', 'Chromatic', 'Enharmmonic'. My conclusion is that one can hardly begin to work on one of these articles except as part of a general plan of everything, and that we should start by drawing the plan.

In general, all of these articles are poorly referenced, mixing (rarely) serious references with obsolete or questionable ones. There is a lot of duplication, in many cases without coordination and sometimes with contradictory information.

More specifically (using the abbreviations D., C. and E. in a clear sense):

• There are articles Diatonik and chromatic , dealing with genera, color, chromaticism, scale, instrument, interval, barrel, chord, harmony, etc., and some others direct: "Diatonic harmony", "Chromatic Harmony", "Diatonic modulation" [but not "C." or "E. modulation"].
• There are separate Chromaticism articles that cover similar topics.
• Three articles of similar content relate to the Diatonic genus , the Chromatic genus and the Enharmonic genus ; there is also an article "Genus (music)" that leads to "Tetrachord" which in turn links to all three.
• Three articles on Diatonic Scale , Chromatic Scale and Enharmonic Scale .
• Diatonic hexachord is not linked to "Hexachord" (or reciprocally), although both overlap.
• Chromatic chord switches to "Chromaticism".
• Diatonic transposition switches to "Transposition".
• The diatonic function appears to be related to "Tonal function", but it seems uncomfortable with the history of the concept...
• Chromatic modulation and Enharmonic modulation switches to the appropriate "Modulation" section, but Diatonic modulation switches to "Diatonic and Chromatic", though "Modulation" includes sections on 'Common tone modulation' and 'Common chord modulation' which may involve D. modulation.
• Diatonic semitone switches to "Minor second", while Chromatic semitone switches to "Augmented unison". [I would expect something about semitone major/minor...; "Minor second" seems confusing, because there are also major and minor tones...]

There are also articles on organological things, diatonic button accordions and chromatic key accordions [but there is nothing about "D. accordions" which, in French, often mean "AccordÃÆ'Â © on bisonore "] and Diatonic Harmonica and Chromatic harmony , which we may have to check coherently with our own work, and Enharmonic keyboards we are here because it includes a discussion of the meaning of the term.

Again, we may have to decide on a general plan for this article, but I do not immediately see how we can proceed. Jobs may have to be set by "active participants" for the Music Theory project - which I did not, fortunately ;-))

- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:31, June 29, 2014 (UTC)

That's a lot of work - thanks Hucbald. So now the question becomes: How to identify a plan that will help start working for all of this. One idea is to start with a combined article "Diatonik, Chromatic, Enharmonic", with the idea that eventually three separate articles will be produced. Any other? - kosboot (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

This is probably what we should do. We will soon find, though, why the existing articles are Diatonic and chromatic without 'Enharmonic'. And an article related to all three elements, D, C and E, will immediately suggest rewriting the Genus (music) article, then the Tetrachord he directed right now, then also the Jins (and possibly others later). Let me just mention at this point that 'Jins' may refer to the 'Zalzalian' tetrachord (with two-thirds neutral and tone) which may be similar to the Greek C. or E. one.

Starting with this can begin to clarify the problem. Is it possible to work on hidden articles, or create some sort of sandbox for that purpose, or should we do it in the open from the beginning? - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:58, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

The standard practice, and advise you to follow it, is to make such changes in someone's sandbox, similar to your Users: Hucbald.SaintAmand/sandbox. - Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:30, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

I have a vague memory that this is Hyacinth's interest and wishes he would consider this proposed job. - kosboot (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Jerome Kohl may or may not have interest and time. Hyacinth (talk) 18:49, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the bell, Hyacinth. My first reaction was to mention three more articles related to the genera and tetrachord articles:

• Octave species
• Pyknon
• Ditone

The octave species article, in particular, is ripe for consideration among these others, as it has been suggested on its Talk page that may be rearranged as a more general article on species of all relevant intervals. Perhaps the articles in the ancient Greek music system should be investigated, too.-- Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:18, July 2, 2014 (UTC)

Hum! I am not so sure that 'species' should be about 'interval species', and it seems your correspondent decides arbitrarily that the treatise that defines 'species' as 'primarum consonantiarum species' is of the utmost importance. There are 'counterculture species', for example... 'Species', as you say, is not really a technical term (which makes the problem even harder); rather than claiming that it means 'species of primarum consonantiarum', I just say that it means 'variation', 'type', or the like.

What surprises me is that the Pyknon article in fact may include all what should be found in a genus article (music), as well as other definitions that must be moved to Tetrachord or other articles; and this certainly requires coordination. I do not mean that the definitions in Pyknon are not correct; instead they appear better than the definitions in the relevant articles; only one can not find a different definition of the 'species' of different articles.

We can not rewrite Wikipedia in its entirety; we have to draw some restrictions; I will not touch the Octave species for now, or even ancient Greece, which remains very complicated - ensuring some coordination in existing articles may be sufficient. - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:24, July 3, 2014 (UTC)

Diatonic hexachord has been associated with hexachord ever since it was created. What makes the plan necessary? Hyacinth (talk) 23:45, July 6, 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I skipped the link from Diatonic hexachord to Hexachord (but no backlinks), and I also missed the Chromatic hexachord. The situation here is not as bad as I think. However, D. hexachord mentions 'Guidonian hexachord' as a synonym, but the description of this medieval hexachord is further developed in the Tetrachord. What is needed here is not just a plan rather than an increase in coordination; but this is not the most urgent case. - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:23, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Sounds like we might need a tree or table of contents, maybe a checklist? Hyacinth (talk) 22:57, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

Even though I did not go home for a few days (so I do not have full access to a good source) I'm ready to start this. My original intentions only focus on strengthening article enharmonicism, but I see there are many other problems. So many of the articles mentioned above sound like they can be folded into one another, or at least heal with some redirects. Just as one looks at trees from the forest, I think we must first come to an agreement on what the core topics are and how to deal with them. Although the MGG has an article on "diatonic, chromatic, enharmonic" which shows that all three have the same level of significance, I think diatonic and chromatic is really a central issue - (enharmonic being a tributary of chromaticism.) I think all the other articles are based on the two of them.Some have thoughts? - kosboot (talk) 23:15, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that these three terms belong together and that we should start (a) by presenting them together, then (b) to explain why only two of them are important to Western music, and perhaps add (c ) that 'enharmonicism' retains some interest in Oriental musical theories (related to the so-called 'Zalzalian scale'; I can not verify now whether WP has an article about this). The only place to do it would be IMO to be one article in the Greek genera, maybe the Genus (music), the Diatonic genus, the chromatic genus and the Enharmonic genus can only connect. This is done, we will be more comfortable to concentrate on Diatonic/Chromatic. I consider that the source for an article about the Genus will be found in Matthiesen on Greek theory, and perhaps in an older book by Murray Barbour. I will have better access to this in a few days. - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:48, July 20, 2014 (UTC)

It certainly makes sense to consolidate three articles on diatonic, chromatic, and enharmonic genera into an article entitled "Genus (music)". However, as mentioned above, this is currently a redirection to "Tetrachord". I do not think that changing the redirection to an article will cause a problem. Can anyone see any difficulty with this? - Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:43, July 20, 2014 (UTC)

I have advanced and made this merge, in the process of editing some duplicated material and making the structure of the discussion more consistent. There is still much work required, but this is the beginning. I have refrained from entering the pyknon article for now. Not only is it rather large for such a small subject (pun intended), but its structure rejects a simple transfer. Maybe it should stay independent? - Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:32, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Main revision of core article

If any of these WikiProject members may have ignored it, the discussion has opened in Talk: Music theory, on the need for major revisions and core restructuring of Music theory articles. - Jerome Kohl (speaking) 23:23, July 8, 2014 (UTC)

List of music intervals

Does anyone care to see the latest changes on the Music interval list, which has been turned into a redirect? There is also a request to move the Pitch interval list to a title that may be relevant. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 07:37, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

I gave my opinion on this on the talk page from the Pitch interval list. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:49, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

Settings - not the same as settings?

Currently, the Music setting switches to Settings, which to me does not seem to be the same thing. Unless I'm wrong, maybe someone more knowledgeable than myself can separate the two? Thank you in advance... Alansplodge (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I would put this in WikiProject Classical music, if only because they are a much more active group and the topic (I think) is more general than theoretical. And yes, it takes a lot of help. kosboot (talk) 18:49, September 19, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I will try it. Alansplodge (talk) 00:11, September 20, 2014 (UTC)

Comment on WikiProject X proposal

Hello! As you know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia are struggling to stay active once they are established. I believe there are many potential WikiProjects to facilitate cross-field collaboration, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will learn what makes WikiProjects successfully defend the editor and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the previous posting error If someone has moved my message to the talk page, feel free to delete this post.) Harej (talk) 22:47, October 1, 2014 (UTC)

Classic training

I recently discovered that Wikipedia does not have articles that define what it means to be "classically trained". I have started an article in my sandbox here User: Boguslavmandzyuk/Sandbox/Classic training (music), I mean to move into the main room when it's ready. Specifically, I will need to find actual reliable sources that support the information we already know. Feel free to add it and help me. Any help is appreciated.-- BoguSlav 22:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ooh! This must be fun! Whenever I find a subject where "everyone already knows" things, they end up with the bitterest dispute about what it is. You have the right to insist on a reliable source search! For starters, I noticed from your draft that singers are not allowed to have a classical education - only instrumentalists. Maybe it should be fixed soon, before we start getting long jokes "singers and musicians". - Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:28, January 3, 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I know what you mean. That's the precise reason I chose to make it in the sandbox and transfer it when it can stand on its own two feet. I also think about the fact that I have "excluded" the singer as well, but I am not sure how to follow it including the vocalist. (Technically, according to the singers, their musical instruments are their voices, so they should not feel left out.) But I'm not sure how to say it. For a reliable source, this has turned into a boring online search, as I mostly find myself fishing through blogs, music studio websites, and other opinion sections. None of this is a reliable source, and many of them have a very biased POV that somehow classic training is so bad. Maybe others are better at finding sources from me, or just knowing information I do not know. Their feedback will be very helpful.-- BoguSlav 06:22, January 3, 2015 (UTC)

scholar.google.com responded with about 697,000 search results with the keyword & lt; classical music education & gt ;, and about 346 with keywords & lt; "classical music education" & gt;.Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I will definitely look through it. - BoguSlav 18:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

JISC announces a new mailing list, and an upcoming website, about Historical Music Pedagogy. This may be of interest to a classical music training project, - "Unmarked comments previously added by Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk o contribs) 12:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is being displayed!

Hello all!

You may have received a message from me previously asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we focused on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProject: good, bad, or neutral. We're also looking for WikiProjects who may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participation easier and projects more manageable. If you or WikiProject you are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be prompted to change anything that goes against its wish. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia: WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (bicara) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Bernhard Ziehn menciptakan

Just made an article about Bernhard Ziehn that I know some people want. Hardly started classes. Have not wikified many references to him. Got it. kosboot (talk) 00:19, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

Consistency in the back page title -flat vs? and -sharp vs?

Can we use the symbols? and? consistently across all wikipedia titles instead of -flat and -sharp? Compare, for example, B? (musical note) and B-flat major. I sometimes use music templates to render ? and ? on the text page; I understand this is making this rendered correctly on all devices. It will not work in the title itself of course. But I wonder if we can use two unicode symbols everywhere lately?

Would anyone mind if I started moving pages like B-flat major to B? main, etc? Tayste (edits) 02:05, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I will object, because I do not feel any mass action to take unless discussed by this group. Personally I prefer a written form rather than a symbol. It would be useful to know what people are blind to hear when WP is read by them; I suspect that the hearing aid will not be able to understand the symbols. - kosboot (talk) 11:34, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

I also think that moving more article titles to use Unicode symbols does not help; "B-flat" is much easier to put in search box than B? (even though REDIRECT BUNDIR (music notes)). If so, will I argue to move B? (musical note) in another way, to B-flat (musical note). I suspect there's a guideline somewhere, downplaying unclear Unicode characters in the page title (unless they're part of the proper name).-- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:01, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, I feel that when someone often uses B ? from F ? , etc., for the record, another one often uses B-flat, F-sharp, etc., for lock - this is probably the reason of the difference between B? (musical note) and B-flat major. But the readability and search argument on Wikipedia looks amazing, and if changes are to be made, I also think they should support the written form. However, these loops seem quite systematic. Note, by the way, that the Wikipedia codes are ? and ? is not really a Unicode character ,? (& amp; # x266D;) and? (& amp; # x266F;) respectively (and what I will not say is obscure characters ;-)); The Wikipedia codes are better. - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 13:52, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask why there is space between lettername and flat/sharp? It looks very strange. Tony (talk) 10:55, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

I do not see spaces in "B ? " or in "B?". There is some space in the image file: B-Flat.svg, but it's not used in text. - Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:50, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

In Firefox and Safari (on all skins), "?" characters have large main and trailing spaces, so Michael's second example has the advantages of space between B and flat symbols, and over n-space between flat symbols and brackets. The {{music}} template delivers results with the correct spaces, but can not be used in the title of the article. As with so many title discussions, it actually seems much more important to improve the article: "B?... is the eleventh semitone...". The last time I saw, B was a note, not a lapse of time. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:51, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Notes: Manual Style/Music Ã,§ The title of classical music Ã,§Ã,§Ã, Abbreviations says:

• Note : ? , ? and Alerts ? should not be used in the title of the article or title.

Note also that the hash character ("#") is prohibited in the article title for technical reasons (Wikipedia: The naming convention (technical limitation) Ã,§ Forbidden characters). Despite the sharp ("?") Sign, it may be decided to avoid it (along with? And?) In the article title because they can not be typed easily (for example, in the address bar, search box, edit window while typing wikilinks, ). - sroc Ã,? 16:52, May 18, 2015 (UTC)

Can we agree that un spaces of flat and sharp markings should be provided? I can not stand the space between letters and marks. That's weird. Tony (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Tonality article revision

The Tonality article is in dire need of revision. Since this may involve a thorough rewriting, I initiated a revision on a specific "Sandbox" page, User: Hucbald.SaintAmand/Tonality. Anyone may participate in this revision. - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:11, April 30, 2015 (UTC)

Four-part harmony

In Wikiproject Classical Music someone finds this article and says it needs help. This article does not even mention how the four-part harmony is the the method people use to learn harmony. I promise to try adding some theoretical information - others are welcome to contribute. - kosboot (talk) 01:15, May 13, 2015 (UTC)

An adjacent opening and description, taken together, confuses two meanings of sound . Here is the opening: "The term" four-part harmony "refers to music written for four voices, or four musical instruments, or keyboard instruments, or some other medium, where various parts give different notes of each music chord." Tony (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk: Dissonants # Requested_move_13_October_2015

Not sure the project is very active, but dissonance is a diversion to the article Music theory. May want to see In ictu oculi (talk) 03:39, October 25, 2015 (UTC)

Call for help

Some of the comments above (1) wonder whether WikiProject Music's theory is alive and (2) complain about the current state of some articles about music theory. Hope that the aswer for (1) is positive and that the projet is alive and well, i would like to call to help review some articles. For this purpose, I open some sandbox pages, described below. Principles of such pages have been contested, for example by Olorulus on the Tonality talk page. I am open to such criticism, but I still believe that the sandbox pages are a good way to improve things.

• User: Hucbald.SaintAmand/Music_theory is a commented version of the Music theory page. This may not be a very good idea, but it helps me identify one of the main problems of the page itself, which is a conflicting view on what is considered a "musical theory" and whether there may be prehistoric and unspoken theories. See also Talk: Music_theory about this. However, this prompted me to open the following page:
• User: Hucbald.SaintAmand/Western_music_theory is a page related to exclusively Western theories (there is a similar page on the French-language Wikipedia), to avoid the above mentioned problem: the pages on Western theory do not really need to raise the question of prehistoric theory; therefore it can leave other pages more free to do so. However I would argue that this does not eliminate the difficulty of defining what is "music theory", in which the page sort of stalled.
• User: Hucbald.SaintAmand/Tonality is meant to be an alternative to the existing Tonality page. In the present circumstances, I think it proposes a satisfactory program of what the page could be, but many parts still have to be written.
• User: Hucbald.SaintAmand/Consonance_and_dissonance is now pending. Some of it has found its way in this Consonance_and_dissonance page which, however, seems to me unsatisfactory at some points. But I find it useless, for now, to further develop this page.

All these pages need help from the participants to The Project Music Theory . None of them are my private property; if they connect with my own page, it's just because i found no other way to make it. Up to now, however, participation has been somewhat sporadic. I am very grateful to those who participate, even those who are at loggerheads with me.

Let me add that these pages do not need to replace existing ones. If the content table is similar, it may be a simple matter of changing parts of an existing page by adding information coming from the sandbox page. Or else, the existing page can be rearranged according to the suggestion of the sandbox page. But I find it rather difficult to keep arguing about the pages and their pages before we reach a consensus on what we want to achieve. Note that each sandbox page described here has its own discussion page for further discussion.

Thank you for your help. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:55, October 25, 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to help, but I do not completely agree with some of the assumptions in your sandbox article. I have no problem with the sandbox process in principle, as long as the relevant page history is checked for any changes that may need to be integrated. Tony (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC) PS You clearly speak the language France: can you briefly comment on the state of the field in fr.WP, compared to en.WP? Tony (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I think there are active members here who are willing to help. It has not been a big, vibrant project since I started it in 2008. I wish there were more members; especially editors with some expertise in this field. I am no longer involved much with this project because I have a stronger interest in writing opera related articles. As for your article creation, why not dare and do your own editing. As long as they are really referenced, there should not be much backlash, and many thanks for you. I do not think having articles competing in the user space is a good idea. 4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Some answers:

• The only thing interesting about the article fr.WP Tha  © orie de la musique occidentale is that it exists. There is also an article Tha  © orie de la musique. Both are very short and do not really talk about theory. But what seems interesting to me is having separate articles for Theory in general and Western Theory in particular, and I got the idea from fr.WP. I can use the en.WP project to rewrite the French article.
• Tony , that you disagree with some assumptions that exist but interest me: do not hesitate to discuss and/or change what you do not like - and, especially, let us discuss the dispute: that's the best way to move forward.
• 4meter4, there are several reasons why I do not want to do my own editing in the original article. I do not really have the time, or energy, especially if it means fighting against the return that will follow soon. I feel that the article Theory of music requires a complete reorganization, which deserves some preparation in the sandbox: I think it's better to work together to achieve this goal, and to achieve some sort of consensus before modifying (or, perhaps, drastically rewriting) the articles there is. The same is true, to a lesser extent possible, from the Tonality article.
• I came here asked by a discussion of SMT Discussions, where one can see that the reluctance of SMT members is caused by the "comeback of war". My "sandbox approach" was conceived as a possible way to get past this difficulty. But it does not make sense if we do not work together. If there is no collaboration to my sandbox page, I may also do my own editing; but I do not believe it's possible at this point.
• SMT discussion refers to some WP articles that are "more complete than can be found in other published sources"; some are starting to be referenced on the academic music department's link pages. My mistake, however, may have struck important important articles like Music theory and Tonality. We might as well start with a better peripheral article. (I have done some work in Tetrachord, recently, and I think the worst has now been removed.) But it will also need discussion.

In short, I can only repeat my help request, on all these points. - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:42, October 26, 2015 (UTC)

The fact that there are only three or four active editors on each page in some cases creates another problem, namely that a single editor can effectively prevent consensus on specific issues. I think this is what Hucbald means about "the return of war," and 4meter4's suggestion of "being brave" is more likely to provoke "pushback" than "thank you". A large number of votes will facilitate consensus on issues that are currently deadlocked. It is precisely this issue that has led me to temporarily retreat from the discussion of this revision, although I intend to return to this debate if and when the dust settles.-- Jerome Kohl (speaking)

Indeed, Jerome Kohl, and these are all well considered is my sense of call for help: I ​​can not and I will not continue without collaboration. That does not mean that I will abandon the whole idea, but it's like you, I might be temporarily retreating. "While" may be rather long, however, if there is no reaction. We (if you allow me to count you with me) do not need suggestions, we need collaboration. - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:08, October 26, 2015 (UTC)

The irony is that if more people interested in music theory become part of this project, then there will be enough people to argue against followers. In any case, even if the project is small, there are enough of us to try to move forward. In general I recommend moving gradually, earning the trust of others to take bolder steps. There was one occasion where I rewrote all the articles in my sandbox, then deleted the existing article and replaced my version; no one complained. That article is Heinrich Schenker. Maybe if we can take an organized approach to repeat the article music theory that might work. - kosboot (talk) 20:20, October 26, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, to be exact, and the central music theory article would be a good place to start. I agree with Hucbald that, without collaboration, we can not make progress with this article or related to harmony, tone of voice, and so forth. If the article on music theory is not a concern for the members of this project, then I do not understand what its purpose at all.-- Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:32, October 26, 2015 (UTC)

On the next page, many editors are listed as active. Maybe someone can ping each with a standard message asking if they want their names retained on the active list or move to the inactive list. Tony (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that most of the really active members, among the 32 lists on the next page, have this page in their watchlist and, therefore, are aware of the current discussion. I'm afraid that none of us has the authority to move them to an inactive list. Similarly, I consider the article itself anonymous: no one has authority over them. If Heinrich Schenker's article remained as a kosboot writing some time ago, it was not because of Kosboot itself, but because the article was good (I would say the same from Schenker's analysis, in a way, which is indeed undergoing some improvement but no significant change since now about two year - this is not an invitation to start destroying it ;-)). One problem with Music theory is that one claims to have authority over it (or in its History section) and refuses to consider criticism. (That someone is among our active members and may read this: I invite him to join the debate). It is precisely to avoid endless discussions with self-appointed "owners" which I suggest opens another page on Western Music Theory. But I certainly do not want to surrender to the owner and, for this reason, I do not want to write it myself. - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:10, October 27, 2015 (UTC)

(I often assert that Wikipedia is a "social encyclopedia" and that person should always approach it by someone approaching any collaboration, giving and receiving.) Perhaps if someone starts editing the music theory of our article it can involve this Wikipedian and convince them to approach the topic with greater openness. Personally, I do not like most of the illustrations, many of which seem tangential. - kosboot (talk) 13:39, October 27, 2015 (UTC)

Well, I might be too aggressive in the recent discussion (see Talk: Music_theory and its archives) to be the one who did that with a chance of success, at least for now. But I will be happy to join after some time, if the first discussion succeeds. - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:37, October 27, 2015 (UTC)

I want to join the Music Theory Project! I will add a new section with more details about my request but for now I would like to say that This project needs help! I want to help! --Xavier (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Introduction - Xavier

Hello members of Project! I just want to introduce myself as a new member of the project. Woot! My plan is to help the subject all , giving you 18 years of professional music experience, and of course my years as unprofessional youth, longer time span.

I can see that this group needs help because participation may be low, but I want to convince you all that I will be very active in this project. --Xavier (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Xavier, and all, please note that the discussion is reviving Talk: Music_theory, in terms that are more friendly than ever. That's where we need help. - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@ Hucbald.SaintAmand: Should the discussion about WP: MTHEORY not be limited to the page we use now? Talk: Music_theory is for discussion about the article itself, not our project WP: MTHEORY.

- Xavier (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Now it makes sense, you are not a member. I keep my last sentence:

"Talk: Music_theory is for discussion of the article itself, not our project WP: MTHEORY."

- Xavier (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Userbox?

Hello members! I just joined the project and was wondering if we have userbox? It is an honor to be apart of this project and I hope I can be of great help! --Xavier (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this project active?

If the project is still active then please respond to this message. I will be a permanent member here and if the project has no activity for more than a month then I choose to be the organizer. If you're all still out there, I hope we can meet soon! --Xavier (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Xavier, I have been an active member of this project for over two years, and I am still. The list of active members counts 33 names (yours include). The project "is dedicated to increasing the coverage of Wikipedia and the organization of music theory topics." This can only happen in each article itself, not here. We may discuss some details of Music theory here, but I do not think it would be a good idea. You will find the names of some of us in Talk: Music_theory page and archive. - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@ Hucbald.SaintAmand: Extraordinary! Love it here from active members! Hooray! I am very ready to be part of this project!

- Xavier (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Xavier, I suggest you start reading a few pages of talk: first of all, this one; then several pages linked up. I think that for now we have to concentrate on the article Music theory itself - to be discussed on its own talk page rather than here, as many may not often check this page. Note that Talk: Music_theory page has six pages or Archives, five of which are from 2015, because the discussion there is quite active. You should check first, then enter the discussion as soon as possible because we need to hear different sounds, lest it all be reduced to a few monologues. - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@ Hucbald.SaintAmand: My discussion for now is purely related to WikiProject. So, I see no reason to hold this special discussion there. When the time comes to discuss the real topic of Music theory, I will start a discussion there. Again, for now, my discussion is entirely related to the project itself, so why I'm on the project talk page.

- Xavier (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to help as fast as I can and am very excited to discuss music theory with you all! Woot!

- Xavier (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Xavier enc: But how do you understand "the project itself", if this is not about fixing WP articles? - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think my point is misunderstood, but it does not matter. I'll be here soon to help. I have another project that is in a desperate situation so the project really needs my attention today. I think tomorrow I will be ready to participate in the discussion of theory. You can see a list of the projects I entered on my user page and they are registered by the lowest members at the top below parent, music. Hope everything is fine!

- Xavier (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

New host?

The original creator of 4meter4 has agreed to make me the host. If anyone agrees/disagree please comment. I am only interested in creating a better project through the implementation of the current project standard for our parent project. You can also view my project list on my user page. I am very active in music projects. If consensus does not agree I have no problem with it and will continue to help as best I can! --Xavier (talk) 12:08, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

I understand that there are important articles to discuss and I will add them soon. For this reason, it becomes difficult to find the time to handle project responsibilities, which is why I aim to be the host. You will find me reducing this role so it gives you more time to spend the article. --Xavier (talk) 12:13, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

If that's not fine with you than I humbly ask permission to change the project page because it's an extreme scene, hard to navigate, and has some unnecessary sub pages. --Xavier (talk) 12:19, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

There is no problem in principle, Xavier; but the original creator has no right to "make" you anything. :-) I am wondering if you agree that content is our ultimate challenge; consistency with "parent" projects seems rather easy. Revamp... can we see what Hucbald, Jerome, dkk think? Tony (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tony1: You're right he is not. That's why he "agrees" and that's why I ask this from the whole community. --Xavier (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

We must remember who our parents are and that we have a responsibility to the old man. Regular updates with subproject lists are one example. --Xavier (talk)

On that note I also understand that there is no leader in WP (should the question arise). I just want to lighten the project responsibilities while helping to improve the article as a team. --Xavier (talk)

@Xavier enc: Let me both Tony and strengthen: none of us, either individually or as a group, has the power to make you "master" of this project; Any "agreement" we may state will remain without validity. It's up to you to do what you think it should be with this page, and we will react. After a while you may indeed appear as a "host", but it will result from your actions, not our agreement. You are n. 33 in our list of 33 participants. You joined yesterday, and the same goes for most projects listed on your page. We will not buy pork in papers, if I may say so, but we will gladly approve any improvements you can bring to the project. - Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@ Hucbald.SaintAmand: Thank you for your opinion! It's great to see activity on the project. Without a doubt I will contribute and think I am just a voter. ) --Xavier (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed many problems

There has been a long delayed syntax on our project page. For example, our parent template for our banners will be deleted! Do not worry, I'll create a new template in my sandbox. For now, the home page looks a thousand times better! --Xavier (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles of FA quality music theory

Browsing through the list of quality FA music theory theories - this is easy to do, there are only four - I am a bit surprised to find that two of them, Johannes Kepler and Leonhard Euler, mention the theory of music only in passing, or not at all. I do not know much about Kepler's achievements in music theory, but I have recently been involved in Euler's writing on music... and I am wondering.

Whatever has been said about Euler, he devotes to music only about a dozen (about 500 pages in total) out of over 800 published writings - I'm referring here to the Enestrm¶m list of his writings. His main achievements are (1) that he considers the possibility of extending the 7-bound intonation (as is said today) and (2) that he proposed Tonnetz . One might argue that in both of these aspects he is somewhat visionary, given the importance taken today on the one hand by Tonnetz in neo-Riemannian theory and on the other hand by the expansion of the 7-level and higher tuning system. But this latest development does not really depend on Euler's knowledge. One should consider in addition that Euler's description of intonation depends heavily on it by Mattheson ( General-BaÃÆ'Ÿ-Schule ). I can hardly add an existing Euler article, because my knowledge comes primarily from first-hand reading, which is "original research" (without something original).

I do not question the intrinsic quality of these articles, but I question the importance (and even their quality) for the Theory of Music project and, in particular, their position among the important and medium quality articles in music theory. This makes me wonder about the meaning of this rank. Importance, IMO, should be judged not in connection with the article itself, but for its position in the whole project - namely that there should be an evaluation of the importance of for music theory . I am wondering, for example, why C? (musical note) articles are classified as High important (and only classified records), while Heinrich Schenker, for example, is important Unknown (but quality C) !! ! I even wonder about the quality rankings: can the article Euler be said to be qualified for the Music theory project, while not even mentioning the De harmoniae veris principiis of 1774, which is a work that actually presents Tonnetz ?

Should we not do something about it? Who to choose? When? Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm ag

Source of the article : Wikipedia