Talk:Guido of Arezzo

message: I removed this link from the reference section:
* Guido d'Arezzo : Hymne à Saint Jean an electronic version
At best it is an external link, not a reference, but I don't think it's relevant to this article. It's just a neat little piece of music inspired by a piece of music mentioned in the article. Furthermore, the external linking policy advises against links directly to rich media, and in this case I take issue with how poorly the link is described (I didn't know it was an mp3, and when I found that out I incorrectly assumed it would be a recording of some relevant reference text). There is no information as to the authorship or copyright of this material. - Rainwarrior 13:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MP3 of "electronic version" 

message: "and the use of the "ut–re–mi" (do–re–mi) mnemonic (solmization). The do–re–mi syllables are taken from the initial syllables of each of the first six half-lines of the first stanza of the hymn Ut queant laxis" : actually, not just three syllables, but ut-re-mi-fa-sol-la : see Solfège#Origin of the solfège syllables. --79.17.130.40 (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but please without the seventh syllable SI which was only used in modern solfeggio. I am missing the mention of the mutation (hexachordum naturale, durum and molle) which should be treated together with the Guidonian hand. I am not sure since when DO was used, but there is obviously a later variant of the solmisation hymn which starts with "Domine, ut queant laxis...". As there is another article about the "Guidonian hand", the whole passage could be omitted here. By the way, treatises of the 12th century also use a fourth hexachord to deduce the use of F sharp (F mi) as ficta. In the latter article I miss the reference to its source, and here I miss a division between life and work of Guido. The computer software named after him is a funny curiosity, but should rather be mentioned in a third section about the reception which is certainly important in an article about Guido! --Platonykiss (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

text: That a 16th century writer believed that this was Guido's derivation, does not show that Guido thought so.  Ornitho and Dowland have far less access to Guido's writings than we do. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, Ornitho must not have known Guido's Epistola de ignoto cantu, or he might not so blatantly have contradicted Guido's own explanation, which is found in that document. It must be kept in mind that fantastic etymologies were very fashionable up to the 17th century, and associational thinking (with its magical connotations of revealed truth) was valued over mere evidence. It was really only in the 19th century that scientific-minded spoil sports like the Grimm brothers began insisting upon reliable sources in place of the most vivid imagination in the explanation of such matters.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you think Guido wasnt lying about HIS reference? 'Oh that?, I got it...' from some Latin hymn, as opposed to some Muslim/Arabic writings..? (OR...maybe from the Greeks!?). Love the way you just poo-poo the whole thing. 76.218.248.127 (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes you thing Guido had any reason to lie about this? Is there some evidence that Arabic writings were well-known in Europe generally and in Italy in particular at this early date? The Arabic language has never been widely read in Europe, and so dissemination of Arabic thinking is generally understood to have been through Latin translations made in Spain in the 11th and 12th centuries. Rather late to be influencing Guido, I should think. And how did we get onto Arabic, anyway? The Babylonians didn't speak Arabic, and neither did the Assyrians.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Dowland's page 143 is translating Ornitho's work, which in turn references Guido's work..and it seems the ut–re–mi syllables are NOT taken from the initial syllables of the first stanza of the hymn "Ut queant laxis", but named after the planets; Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn...perhaps one might address that, and the following above CITATION paragraph..instead of who -Ornitho/Guido- read what when? Afterall, isn't that the subject of the heading? Maybe Guido got it from the Greeks? I suppose what is being written here is, simple put... the LONG held belief of Guido's inspiration is (possible) not true. 76.218.248.127 (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Myke Cuthbert and I have adequately addressed the question of Ornitho's reliability on this point. What is needed to carry this discussion any further is some evidence that (1) sources in Arabic, Greek, or Assyrian were comprehensible to Western-European scholars like Guido as early as the 10th century, and (2) Guido had some reason to conceal his sources. Are you offering any?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

text: really quite bizarre.. you'd rather discuss Guido's sources than the word's being used..address that! How is it, we know it as 'sol' but it was originally known, written as 'sol re ut'. address that! The meaning of that word.. as given a few paragraphs above.. Address Saturn's alternative Assyro-Babylonian name as MUL.UTU (Star of the Sun)... oh, and here's something more to put in your pipe... 
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Guido_d%27Arezzo 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:110C:7033:E16A:42BB (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ut–re–mi" (do–re–mi) 

message: Where does this date come from?  Grove 2000 has "after 1033" for the best information about his death -- I think we should revert to that unless we have a better citation. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  1050? 

message: Would be interesting to add something on this, since it is probably why there is software named after him. See here: https://books.google.com/books?id=NaJyUNQVAusC&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=monk+chant+stochastic+music&source=bl&ots=EIxzYsmNdk&sig=RU5WoNRUYLAbsohv505PdsMze5Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijypGRmPvNAhWDbT4KHdJKBcoQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&q=monk%20chant%20stochastic%20music&f=false
Valkotukka (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The author of that statement may be an expert in something, but musicology is not it. The key line, "Guido d'Arezzo ... resorted to using a number of simple rules that mapped liturgical texts in Gregorian chant, due to an overwhelming number of orders for his compositions", is all the proof that is necessary. We don't have any reason to believe that Guido was actually a composer (though it is of course possible), let alone that he amassed a fortune cranking out pop tunes to order like some demented tin-pan alley tunesmith! There is already a link to the notation software named after Guido, which is factual; we don't need one to an irresponsible fiction like this.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Jerome, thanks for your informed input. I am referring to the overall subject of Guido's composition methods rather than the inaccurate portrait of his working style that you see in this particular author's phrasing. Aside from this particular example, there are plenty of publications (written in language as dry and academic as can be wished), that comment on the algorithmic (i.e., step-by-step process-based) methods for composition they see discussed in the Micrologus. I take it that you don't find this a worthwhile topic to be discussed in this article? Valkotukka (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I need to re-read the Micrologus, but I do not recall a system of composition rules as such. If there is some sort of coherent system, then I would agree it should be discussed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Algorithmic composition

message: "Guido is somewhat erroneously credited with the invention of the Guidonian hand"
This could be worded better. As soon as you read the actual article it basically still attributes the Guidonian Hand to him.
It appears Guido perhaps expanded upon the system or was the first to really put it to use, or first to write it down. Like along those lines. Or the article is simply trying to state that it sort of pre-existed Guido.  
I think it's a stretch to say that Guido was erroneously credited with its invention. This is a big asterisk. "He didn't invent it... But..."
It would be better to be more specific. "While the Guidonian hand predates Guido D'Arezzo he made significant contributions to the system increasing its popularity" (I'm just making this up on the spot. But I would suggest this be worded less aggressively).
2001:56A:F260:F400:4086:11B:D3C2:8BCB (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidonian hand