Talk:Ear training

message: To argue for or against a particular link please use this section from now on.
Seriously... isn't that just an advertisement? It should be removed from the article. Bests, Languageleon (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: The more I look at this article, the worse it appears.  It's not just disorganized (although it is); it's completely devoid of context.  I don't think it's a far stretch to imagine that someone coming to this article is asking the simple question "What is ear training?" and this article doesn't do much more than anecdotally blurt forth a scattershot number of examples of activities that various people currently do in the name of "ear training".  There's no history, no research, no indication of why any of these different methods exist and what kind of effects they purport to have (or what effects they actually have).  There's no description of who came up with these ideas or in which parts of the world they've taken root.  There's no description of who thought of ear training in the first place or why someone had to think of it in the first place.  There's no cultural comparison (at the least, Japanese ear training is markedly different from North American, to the point where each is literally astonished by the other), there's no timeline, there's no... anything.
Does anyone feel like helping me come up with a new outline for this article?  Since I'm currently in a graduate program I have access to plenty of source publications, so once the topics are established I can root around for evidence.
The first thing I'm thinking of is simply the marking point for the origin of modern ear training.  The first few things I'm finding point toward the turn of the 20th century, such as this [book from 1898] which seems to be one of the first prominent uses of the term "ear training", this [article from 1900] claiming that ear training is "still in its infancy", and an [article from 1882] trying to persuade teachers that solfege will not destroy their students' musicality.
What should come next.. introduction into schools?  Early movements in ear training?  Thoughts?  aruffo (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical assessment and a call to action 

message: Not a major 7th 71.64.109.190 (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pure imagination is minor 7th 

message: The following statement is looking for citations:
"For example, free and open source software under the GPL can provide many comparable features to popular proprietary products.[citation needed]"
The is a product called "GNU Solfege" which is a free open source software for ear training. From its web site it boast the following features:
    * Recognise melodic and harmonic intervals
    * Compare interval sizes
    * Sing the intervals the computer asks for
    * Identify chords
    * Sing chords
    * Scales
    * Dictation
    * Remembering rhythmic patterns 
I'm pretty sure that meets with the "can provide many comparable features" claim.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyatlarge (talk • contribs) 06:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  software 

message: "However, others have shown that such familiar-melody associations are quite limited in scope, applicable only to the specific scale-degrees found in each melody".  I'm not really sure what this sentence is getting at.  In what way, exactly, is it saying that the "familiar-melody association" method is limited in scope, and how would an alternative method compare? 220.245.235.235 (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: I wondered about this page? EAR TRAINING ONLINE It is a single site run by  George Brodbeck, an Australian composer, arranger and trombone player. As far as I can see it's not commercial, not even ad. supported, and the links to the products aren't affiliate links either. As far as I can tell it isn't selling any product at all. Also it covers all the ear training programs I've heard of, free and commercial, and gives a fair write up of them. Just add it in as: 
Links
* EAR TRAINING ONLINE  Comprehensive survey of ear training software - open source, commercial, free and online courses
then can add a comment in the actual wiki text for the links section: "Please don't add in any individual ear training products to this section as this is covered in the EAR TRAINING ONLINE website and there are too many such programs to list individually here." in the wiki text.
That satisfies both things - it is not just a list of links to ear training programs, but answers the needs of the reader who after reading t his article is naturally going to want to know where you can go to find out about ear training programs.. I agree that there are too many of them to list in an article like this. I think it is partly a matter of numbers. If you have only one or two notable programs, they may be worth mentioning in a links section. If you have 17 notable ear training programs as he has on that page, then it is too much to add to a page that is not directly about ear training software.
BTW (not suggesting this as a course of action) Wikipedia pages do sometimes deal with large categories of notable software. You could have a separate wikipedia page  titled "notable ear training programs" if it was felt to be of sufficient weight to deserve a separate encyclopedic entry about it.
This is done for some kinds of software in wikipedia. For instance this web page Comparison of platform virtual machines. It depends how notable that category of software is, and whether there are good reasons to do an encyclopedic survey article. If there are many notable software programs in their category, many with their own separate webpages in wikipedia already, then such a survey page can be of value.
Disclaimer - I am a software developer myself. However, I have no connection at all with the website. Acutally, I have actually dabbled in writing ear training software myself but haven't yet released any such software as a full program, it is just a feature of a larger program, and not very functional, and not yet worth even mentioning to the author of that website. I came to this page looking for good ear training software to use myself.Robert Walker (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: it fits the Wikipedia guidelines here:  Links to be considered "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations." and "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Robert Walker (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: After a bit more thought, I decided to "Be Bold" and just add it in. It looked good on the page, doesn't take up much space or obscure the article, and gives a place for readers to go to find out more if they wish to find out about ear training software, as is likely to be the case for many readers of this page. So - seems a "no brainer" to do it this way - but if you have any objections to it do of course say! Robert Walker (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration of external links section 

message: The only thing is - there is no coverage on that site or on this current wikipedia page of microtonal ear training software. Sites such as Xenharmonic Ear Trainer and this one Microtonal Harmony and Ear Training. Probably the article should mention microtonal ear training (which is actually a particular interest of my own, some time I want to write a microtonal ear training program myself but probably won't do it for some years yet). It is a very 12 tone haarmony centric article at present. Also for instance what about ear training for Arabic / Turkish / Indian  / Thai (roughly seven equal) / Gamelan music etc, etc, entire cultures of musicians, they must have their own ear training methods.... also modern microtonal music. But that might well be best served by an entire page of its own at some future date if some wikipedia editor has the expertise and the time to do it. Robert Walker (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a new section "Microtonal Chord and Interval Recognition". Just a stub really, surely more should be said though probably best on a separate page - especially if anyone wants to step in and add information about ear training in other musical traditions that use microtones such as Maqams and Indian music, or Gamelan playing (where there are many singers and stringed instruments such as Rebab who need good intonation relative to the tuned percussion etc. Robert Walker (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Microtonal ear training

message: Aruffo didn't get his way before and is now trying to vandalize this page. He has an obvious and commercial conflict of interest in modifying this article but as done so repeatedly despite previously reached conclusions that he was indeed wrong. He continues to push his views on others. 76.201.177.36 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:CONFLICT:  "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."  aruffo (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not allegations. You have several commercial products related to this topic on the market and have been systematically working to remove references to software both commercial and free that have been referenced on this page. This is a plea for help from someone with perhaps a bit more patience than I to deal with your never-ending trolling. You've already proven that once consensus is reached you'll still keep pushing your views onto others. 76.201.177.36 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: From WP:CONFLICT:  "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."  aruffo (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aruffo Vandalism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ear training. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303173107/http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/drew.waters/elementary120b_home.htm to http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/drew.waters/elementary120b_home.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212201159/http://www.ulm.edu/~everett/auralskills.html to http://www.ulm.edu/~everett/auralskills.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514002441/http://faculty.augie.edu/~randrews/theory/Course_main.html to http://faculty.augie.edu/~randrews/theory/Course_main.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified