Talk:Flat (music)

message: True or false: the bottom of this article can move to Flat (disambiguation). 66.245.107.192 23:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The section, beginning, "The word flat also has other, unrelated uses:" has since been removed. Hyacinth (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  True or false?? 

message: I just added discussion on the "musical notation" page and was wondering why a b is used for notating a flat when a "b" is a step higher that "a" (Chevyfastback 06:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://highhopes.com/musicsymbols.html and note that the natural and sharp signs are also derived from the character "B"... fascinating stuff. Andrewa (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  b is a whole step higher than a 

message: It seems that the two pages, Flat and Sharp, are nearly word-for-word equivalent. Now, I know that they are different items, but even from a musical perspective, they do the same thing to a note, and that is change the pitch of a note that is supposed to be played. It would make sense to move this page to something like Flat and sharp. Jared (t)  16:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about merging with accidental (music)? — Gwalla | Talk 04:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good idea. That might work better. Jared (t)  13:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I vote to keep. The page should definitely not be merged with Flat. A merge with accidental (music) would make more sense but after some thought I think that sharp, flat, and natural deserve their own separate pages. Any talk about merging into accidental (music) needs to ask what to do with the natural sign. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If sharp and flat are merged with accidental, natural should be merged in too. — Gwalla | Talk 23:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the three only natural is invariably an accidental. The others are more often than not part of the key signature. 203.109.160.68 (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

text: See Talk:Accidental_%28music%29#Inflections_vs_accidentals. Hyacinth (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gwalla's suggestion: we should merge into Accidental (music). Reyk YO! 03:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree - an accidental is not identical to a flat (or sharp).  The key signature will contain sharps and flats (except for Cmajor/Aminor of course) but these are not accidentals.  Incidentally this article does need to discuss or at least mention (with a link) the role of flat/sharp symbols in the key signature, and to put the paragraph on the order of the flats in context.  At the moment it is not clear what 'order of the flats' even means in this context.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.234.218 (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I suggest we perform the merge as discussed, but have a template note at the top of the article saying Sharp (music) and Flat (music) redirect here. For sharps and flats in key signatures, see Key signature or something to that effect. Reyk YO! 00:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: I'm not really sure about the sentence "Sharps use the '♭' symbols because they traveled forward in time to American English". Is this meant as a joke?
Faltenin (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See: Help:Page history. . Despite the addition of the citation it is clearly vandalism. Hyacinth (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time travelling 

message: Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional citations

message: I have initiated a formal RM action to move Musical scale to Scale (music). Contributions and comments would be very welcome; decisions of this kind could affect the choice of title for many music theory articles.
NoeticaTea? 00:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move: "Musical scale" → "Scale (music)" 

message: See  for an example of triple flats (B) being used in a piece from 1914 (Nikolai Roslavets' Piano Sonata No. 1). Unusually, the double and triple flats in the score are "beamed"! Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Score at IMSLP Double sharp (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

text: What is dubious? Hyacinth (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

text: What about the statement is dubious? Hyacinth (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason I wasn't thinking properly. :-( It's strange that triple sharps have been used in Romantic music, but (AFAIK) triple flats haven't. (Still, this piece is still useful for discussing the notation of double and triple flats.) Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: In tuning, flat can also mean "slightly lower in pitch". If two simultaneous notes are slightly out of tune, the lower-pitched one (assuming the higher one is properly pitched) is said to be flat with respect to the other.
This paragraph from the first section is apparently contradictory. It seems to say two notes played at the same time are both out of tune but then parentheticaly states that one may not be - from context the parenthetical makes more sense (being flat relative to the other note) but it can't be true that both are out of tune and one is not out of tune simultaneously. I don't know enough about the subject to be certain about what is intended - but it's not very clear as is.
216.226.184.94 (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification / Correction Needed? 

message: Could somebody explain to me (a musical novice) why these are used? Isn't a double flat note just the note below, and a double sharp note the note above? For instance, wouldn't a double flat G be an F? And a double sharp F be a G? Confused. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The same question was raised and answered above at #Just curious. It's all about spelling conventions, mainly in the context of modulation and transposition. See also: Google. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Tell that to Beethoven, who in Op. 78 dares to write G in the left hand against F in the right, and in the Eroica turns the C in his theme into D without us being meant to know until we hear how it continues. Tell that to Mozart, who in the modulating passage in the slow movement of K. 543 doesn't actually care to get all the accidentals spelt correctly. Or even Schubert, for whom in the Rosamunde Quartet a repeated note is approached as G and quitted instead as A, creating a deliberate ambiguity. By the time of the late 18th century there is clearly no difference at all made between enharmonic sharps and flats. They have become the same note, whose meaning is only illuminated by what follows, not how they are spelt. Double sharp (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double flat and double sharp 

message: I've never heard of this before and when searching on Google for this phrase only Wikipedia itself shows up with a page from Quora (that probably got it from Wikipedia). "Temporany" even shows up in the Sharp page. Wtf is up with that?? 2804:1B3:A581:EAFE:CFDB:F112:D4E0:D901 (talk) 14:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it really "temporany accidental"?