Talk:Microtone (music)

message: Didn't Thelonious Monk write in quarter-tones?
:If he did, I'd love to know about it, because I'm a fan of both Monk and microtones. --Camembert
: I think it's in the film Jazz on a Summer's Day that the voice-over (I think) says that Monk hits two notes simultaneously to symbolize the 1/4 tone in between. -- Tarquin
::Nevertheless the piano does not have microtones. As a piano player, Monk did not "write in quartertones". In fact: what's more likely than quartertones is that Monk, like uncountable piano players, strikes two keys to suggest blue notes, which, while arguably microtonal when sung or played on instruments capable of inflecting pitch, are not quartertones. I could also argue that blue notes are NOT microtonal, at least not according to any model this article provides, because blue notes aren't of any precisely fixed pitch or interval at all - the very blueness is because of its unfixed nature. This article only talks about microtones being fixed degrees of non-equaltempered scales. I'd like to see how JOASD cited the quartertone claim, which is frankly contrary to what everybody learns in jazz studies. 198.49.180.40 18:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thelonious Monk

message: This article doesn't mention it.  Can some expert please fill in?
:Perhaps you could tell us where you heard about it, and we could go from there. I've heard Bulgarian music, and seen Bulgarian instruments, but this is the first I've heard of a "59 note scale". 59 notes is kind of unwieldly, and I don't think it could properly be accomodated on their traditional instruments. Perhaps you misunderstood? (Or maybe this is a theoretical distinction I have not heard of.) - Rainwarrior 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm looking for info on a 59 note bulgarian scale 

message: Would it make more sense to speak of the history of microtonal music in jazz?  Jazz (and blues) musicians have rarely actually adhered to the even tempered 12-tone scale, though perhaps much of this wouldn't be considered microtonal if the notes are just bent/adjusted tones from non-microntonal scales/chords.  It just seems odd to make this passing reference to the use of microtones in rock and neglect their greater prominence in jazz...
: I'll say here what I wrote above: Blue or bent notes aren't microtones, according to the way this article describes microtonality (scales with intervals smaller than an eventempered semitone). In eventempered rock and jazz, a performer's tremolo moves the pitch of a scale degree (obviously changing the interval), but the scale degree still is of a fixed (meta) pitch. Sure, we can say that blue and bent notes probably are "more prevalent" in jazz than in rock, but, I'd not argue (without evidence) that microtonal scales, compositions and performances are more prevalent in jazz than in rock. Is this what you're arguing? 198.49.180.40 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about jazz? 

message: I noticed some links to some microtonal music software. I would like to see my freeware program on this list (but I realize it might be inappropriate to add it myself).
*Intun (Win, freeware)
- Rainwarrior 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microtonal software 

message: Tuning down a quarter step does not qualify as microtonal. The tuning is still 12 tone equal temperament, simply because you tune to a different standard than A440 does not qualify as microtonal. It is still quite normal tuning. - Rainwarrior 19:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're an unaccompanied soloist, then you're quite right. But if you're playing in an ensembnle where everyone else's A is a quartertone off your A-half-flat, and this is a deliberate composed effect, then the piece is microtonal and your notes in combination with the other performers' make up a 24-tone scale. This article clearly describes such ensembles. 198.49.180.40 18:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Vitriol 

message: This section is oddly sparse. Right now it reads like a mini bio of Carrillo. Why don't we mention Aristoxenus, Ptolemy, Vincenzo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Giuseppe Tartini, Christiaan Huygens, Marin Mersenne, Nicholas Mercator, Charles Ives, Harry Partch, et cetera et cetera (this very article has a ton of links to bio pages)?? I think we should fill this out a lot more, and we don't need to have so much Carrillo in there, that stuff is covered on his own bio page. What we need is an overview of who did what, an overview of the development. We don't need biographies of these people, we need to discuss how they fit in to the ongoing progress of microtonal music. If I ever get the time, I'll write this, but right now I've got a lot of other things on my to-do list, so this is just a suggestion, in case anyone wants to step up and do it. - Rainwarrior 04:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: He died in 1722. So he can't have written any pieces in the 1730's ... check dates, please. --Tdent 19:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kuhnau dates 

message: There is a large section of another text inserted at the beginning of the terminology section, with a link to it's source.  I can't find any indication that the author of the text gave permission to use it, but it seems to have survived in the article for quite a while.  Does anyone know the status of this?
Even if this isn't copyvio, it definately doesn't fit with the style of the rest of the article, and needs some rewriting.  --Starwed 12:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm removing that section, since no one has defended it.  If it's actually included with appropriate permissions, please tidy it up a bit before putting it back in.  ^_^  --Starwed 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy vio? 

message: Debussy was not a microtonal composer. I think one mention of him is worth making, to distinguish non-diatonic music from microtonality, but whoever wrote the terminology section has some kind of fixation in the matter. Giamberardino 16:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole definition as muddled. I have never seen quarter tones excluded from microtonality anywhere else. It's definitely used to mean "non 12-TET" quite frequently, but the phrase "conventional Western music" should not be used as a synonym for 12-TET. I would not include Debussy as a microtonalist since his pitches were chosen directly from standard tuning (as well, he is hardly ever restricted to just 6 pitches; it practice he usually uses a set of 6 for a short passage then switches, or uses it for a melody with accompaniment that takes whatever harmony is appropriate, etc.). We might as well also call Bach a microtonalist because of his frequent obsession with diminished seventh chords (we could very well call Bach a microtonalist for other reasons though). Other comments like "constant restlessness of the dominant seventh" are vague and overly general, not useful at all. This terminology section needs a rewrite from scratch. - Rainwarrior 16:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Debussy?

message: 1/4 comma meantone is NOT identical with 31 equal, it only comes CLOSE. strictly speaking: it uses the interval 5/4, which 31 equal does NOT! huygens took 1/4 comma meantone as a starting point for his suggested 31 equal, but his mathematics are substantially different. we must go for precision in this article: my suggestion.Kmbemb 23:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 1/4 comma meantone

message: does anyone know the minimum difference in pitch able to be detected by a human?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.164.231 (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  distinction threshold 

message: The graf 
As Joel Mandelbaum has pointed out in his PhD thesis "Multiple Division Of the Octave and the Tonal Resources of the 19 Tone Temperament" (1960), scholarship done on the Montpellier Codex suggests that it records microtonal tunings, probably the Greek enharmonic. Thus the evidence appears to show that microtonal tunings survived and were commonly used late into the medieval period.
has two problems, IMO. 
*The first is procedural: one source does not make a "Thus...common."
*The second is, in fact, that there are any number of interpretations of the figures dispersed withing the letter notation of the mss. I will add that information soon.
Best, --Shlishke (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montpelier Ms. letter notation 

message: "Xenharmonic" is a related term, not an alternative definition of "microtonal". If there are any references (textbooks, dictionaries, peer-reviewed journals) supporting this idea, they need to be listed. Otherwise, all definitions of and speculations as to what is and what is not "xenharmonic" need to be in the "xeharmonic" wiki, not in the "microtonal" wiki. 
In addition, microtonalities which are an essential part of various musical traditions around the world need to be mentioned, by someone qualified to do so. The Indian concept of "meend" is an example.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Zamjatin (talk • contribs) 09:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up 

message: I put the secondary definition of "microtonal" back in, but without directly equating "microtonal" with "xenharmonic". Please see The New Grove 1st ed. () vol.12 p. 279 on microtonal music.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Zamjatin (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinstating the "other" definition of "microtonal" 

message: Editor Gwalla has asked that eight items on this page which have the hidden-text comments usual on Wikipedia (explaining the nature of needed missing references) be announced here. I was responsible for putting those eight calls for reference (as well as some others that seem self-evident), so I suppose it is my responsibility to comply with Gwalla's request. Please consider them announced.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  At the request of Gwalla 

message: The "Usage" section has been there a long time, without citations. Quite clearly a bit of "original
research". It's not that I disagree with it, or don't think it could be a very nice section, but it
is not appropriate to this page as it is.  This is just a notification that if it's not referenced fairly soon it will be removed. Frank Zamjatin (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning of pending erasures....

message: The image :Image:Tonraum30.11-14 1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Tonraum30.11-14 1.jpg

message: The DMOZ search template, and by implication all DMOZ search links, is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of Open Directory Project (DMOZ) search links is invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz2. Qazin (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open Directory Project Links 

message: It seems to me a significant gap that Arab music and maqam is only mention in 'See Also'.  Not that I'm qualified to make the additions. Dlabtot (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article doesn't sufficiently represent world music, and this should be corrected. However, it occurs to me that the term "microtone" itself assumes the Western 12-TET scale as a basis for comparison, so I'm not sure whether this puts the article outside of NPOV.BrutishBloodGod (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  maqam 

message: I like that this section is getting expanded, but it's definitely starting to fall under WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.BrutishBloodGod (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you mean that it is starting to resemble a textbook, not that it is beginning not to resemble a textbook. Hyacinth (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.BrutishBloodGod (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Could you be more specific, BrutishBloodGod? The recent expansion (still only a single paragraph long) was made by me in response to a well-justified "clarify" tag added by your good self. In what way is this now "textbook-ish"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean to say that the paragraph (and article) as it stands is jargon-heavy and, even with wikilinks, not comprehensible without a moderate understanding of certain music theory topics. This was the case as well prior to recent edits, which have (and this includes my own edits) added important content but also exacerbated the overall textbookishness. I just wanted to note my opinion of something we should watch out for in future edits.BrutishBloodGod (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the clarification. Long-established text aside, I would suppose the "jargon" terms in the recent addition I made would be "diatonic chordal relations", "chromatic progressions",  "closed circle of nineteen fifths", "modulating sequence", "minor thirds", and "transposed repetition". These all are paraphrased from the cited source. Perhaps it would be helpful to link some terms, such as "diatonic", "chromatic", and "circle of fifths", but if you can come up with more transparent language that says the same thing (I am unable to think of any ways of doing this myself), please feel free to make substitutions.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: How, why, where? Hyacinth (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check the edit history, back in February of 2009 an anonymous editor removed "a gazillion" specific calls for citations in favour of this blanket "refimprove" banner. It would be a fairly simple task to restore those citation-needed tags to any of that material that might still be in the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Refimprove

message: Aside from the two topics mentioned briefly above (xenharmonic & Aristoxenos). What, why, where, and how does this article need to be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have gone back to that earlier version. It turns out that "a gazillion" means precisely 48 calls for citation or clarification that were removed at that time in favour of that blanket banner. The great majority have been addressed in the meantime, though eight or ten have not. I have restored these specific tags, which were almost all in the "History" section. That section also bears an "essaylike" banner, and the other sections look reasonably good to me, so the general cleanup banner at the head of the article seems unnecessary.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: In the lists of microtone composers, and indeed in this entire article, why is there no mention of John Corigliano? (ex. Symphony No. 1 and Chiaroscuro)
Bradtwotrees (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they microtonal, in any but incidental ways?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually it should be Symphony No. 2 in which the final movement begins in microtonal textures. As for Chiaroscuro, it is a piece for two pianos, tuned a microtone apart, so no, it is not incidental but the very nature of the work. --B0cean (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: John Corigliano

message: What kind of audio files would we like on the page? Hyacinth (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reqaudio

message: I find that the order, which apparently is in chronological birth order, to be illogical and confusing to read. None of these lists are really addressing when these people started "pioneering" or "composing" or "researching" microtonal music. Such a list, if so desired, would be possible to do albeit very tedious to put together. That would require substantial time in researching and then reordering the list. And then there would also be the sticky point, does one make a list by completion or publication date of the composition? If the intended information was to give a sense of when microtonality was pioneered, composed, or researched, it really fails. Just because a microtonalist was born earlier than someone else does not mean that that person should be earlier on the timeline. Makes no sense at all and does not follow good practice.
I propose that each of these three lists be re-ordered alphabetically according to last name. That would be more logical and understandable for those who are perusing these lists. Even the major composer dictionaries and encyclopedias (ex. Groves, New Harvard) by definition do not do a chronological listing but an alphabetical one. The lists in this topic should also so be listed. --B0cean (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of "Pioneers," "Composers," and "Researchers" 

message: What qualifies Varèse as a "quarter-tone pioneer"? I can only recall a few bars in the original version of "Amériques", which he later deleted, and his electronic compositions (Déserts, Poème électronique). (But do they qualify as micro-tonal? They are not quarter-tone, that's for sure.) -- megA (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea who put in that comment, but it is certainly inaccurate, and should be removed in favour of the default for the section heading "microtonal pioneers". Thanks for bringing attention to this error.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varese? 

message: We are curious to know why the composer Myster Shadow-Sky who discovered starting in 1982 (with his piece Ourdission) a huge amount of nonoctave scales is periodically banned from the "Recent microtonal composers" list? His work shows him as a pioneer concerning the harmonic nonoctave scales and the new harmony resulting from his Nonoctave Scalar Field Theory. More than 250 shadow-sky scales available for free download for composers and musicians to create a new music sound.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.23.245.10 (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myster Shadow-Sky 

message: I noticed in this discussion a word 'microtonality', but in the article which this discussion relates to, there is no 'microtonality'. Instead I found there in the body of the article 'microtonalism', despite the article is categorized as 'microtonality'. From this mishmash arose my question: is 'microtonality' synonym for 'microtonalism'? Can someone explain what is 'microtonality' (and does it have something common with 'tonality') directly in the WP article? Olorulus (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Microtonalism" strikes me as less idiomatic in English than "microtonality", but this may be debatable. The definition of "microtonailty" is given in the first sentence of the article: "Microtonal music is music using microtones—intervals of less than an equally spaced semitone." It has nothing to do with tonality, atonality, bitonality, or any similar terms. On the face of it, this should be simple enough, but in fact there is some disagreement about whether (for example) non-equal-tempered (diatonic or chromatic) tunings constitute "microtonal" practice and, if not under ordinary circumstances, when do the deviations from 12-equal become so extreme as to qualify for "microtonal" status.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  You imply that 'microtonality' is a synonym of 'microtonal music', right? If so, then it would be very useful to extend the definitive section of the main article, something like: 'Microtonal music, or microtonality, (or microtonalism?) is music using microtones - intervals  of less etc., to avoid confusion. At present form, any reader knowing (the very long and rich) tradition of 'tonality', would imply (as I did) the meaningful link of 'tonality' with 'microtonality' in some theoretic (though completely obsure) sense. Olorulus (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is not quite a synonym, though the difference is probably too small to worry about ("microtonality" could include, for example, purely theoretical systems, whereas "microtonal music" could be taken to refer more narrowly to an actual repertory of performable compositions). I see that I made the assumption of synonymity without realizing it, when I quoted that opening sentence as a definition of "microtonality". Although I think the confusion with "tonality" in its various senses as "systems of tone relations" is less likely to occur in English than in some other languages (we often use "tone" as a synonym for "note" or "pitch", for example), your point is well taken, and it is a very simple matter to add these alternative terms to the opening sentence for clarity.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for paying attention to the non-English-speaking readers. Also, please keep in mind, that the article is categorized within 'Microtonality', but in the article itself the section title is 'Microtonalism', without definition of either. Olorulus (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be a good idea to change those section headings from "microtonalism" (which I am having some trouble finding in actual use) to "microtonality" (which is used almost everywhere in English sources). If anyone can prove me wrong, I am happy to let them revert those headings but, as you point out, the category is "microtonality", not "microtonalism".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for changing this! Would you also add directly in the article a thesis you mentioned above, that microtonality has nothing to do with what is explained in this WP as 'tonality'. Otherwise, it is temptative (not only 'for a Russian', I'm afraid) to click the hyperlink and get confused. Olorulus (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is a good idea. However, I think it may also be necessary to mention those writers who do try to explain "tonalities" involving microtonal intervals. I cannot imagine any English-speaking readers thinking the term "microtonality" would mean a weak form of tonality, but perhaps this is different for readers coming from a different language base.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, I can't know how readers coming from different language base feel. There are dozens of words (not only musicological terms) that use the productive mechanics micro+essential word, or macro+essential word (let me spare examples, please). The word 'microtonality' therefore can easily be percepted inside this trend (micro+tonality), but in effect it comes from 'microtone', as though it would be (hypothetically) 'semitonality' derivating from 'semitone', or 'tonality' in the meaning of the Chernomor's mystical scale (Glinka). Other authors like Italian and Spanish, who use 'microtonalism', or Germans who might feel uncomfortably with Mikrotonalität (I never saw this in German special literature, but maybe I'm wrong), they just try to avoid the described ambiguity. Olorulus (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microtonality and microtonalism 

message: A teacher of user Olorulus was Kholopov who invented the chimeric word микрохроматика (microchromatics), but nobody has ever called any microtone as микрохром (microсhrome). Therefore, along with the penetration to the Russian-language musicology the necessity to discuss microtones, naturally is used word микротоника (microtonicism) displacing Kholopov's absurd микрохроматика.
User Olorulus is hard working over censorship Russian language Wiki, advertising himself, Kholopov and prolonging life a dying микрохроматика, so his aim was to push into English Wiki article as many mentions of the stupid word  as will be allowed here. --93.76.31.226 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The main aim of Olorulus appearance in discussed article 

message: I feel like this page is extremely Eurocentric and leaves out the long history of Indian tradition which has been using microtones for far longer. This page needs a major rewrite, or at least, a huge addition.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.186.255 (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where on Earth is all the information on Indian tradition? 

message: Hi there, just to say I've proposed a project  Microtonal Music, Tuning, Temperaments and Scales .
It's scope would include everything in the now inactive  project,. But it adds "Microtonal Music" to the title. This makes it broader in scope, for instance to include microtonal compositions and composition technique, microtonal chords, microtonal composers, microtonal organizations, microtonal regional and national music, etc etc. The idea is that as a larger project we would get more participation.
If you support the idea please add your name to the  #Support section, or if you have any thoughts on it that you want to share, do add your voice to its Discussion section. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: WikiProject Microtonal Music, Tuning, Temperaments and Scales

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Microtonal music. 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/20120824020439/http://www.furious.com/perfect/experimentalstringinstruments.html to http://www.furious.com/perfect/experimentalstringinstruments.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151108182752/http://www.hypercustom.com/yuichionoue.html to http://www.hypercustom.com/yuichionoue.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) 20:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Microtonal music. 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/20060901232520/http://paginas.tol.itesm.mx/campus/L00280370/carrillo.html to http://paginas.tol.itesm.mx/campus/L00280370/carrillo.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515230851/http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusic_playing_cracks/ to http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusic_playing_cracks/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901232520/http://paginas.tol.itesm.mx/campus/L00280370/carrillo.html to http://paginas.tol.itesm.mx/campus/L00280370/carrillo.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) 12:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion