lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Longa (music)

message: According to this article, the longa has a stem, but the "double-longa" does not.  What about the maxima - which has a longer stem than the longa, and is used in mensural notation to indicate a time period of two longas&hellip.  True, neither notation is used much any more, but it is still being taught - at least at the university level.
Additionally, according to Wikipedia's own article on Mensural notation, the correct term is a "duplex-longa", not a double longa.  Just wondering....  - NDCompuGeek (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The stem on the maxima is usually the same length as a long of the same size; it's the note head which is wider; usually twice the width in Renaissance white-notation scores, but often much longer in pre-1425 scores, especially at the ends of pieces where it sometimes fills the entire rest of the line to the right margin.   -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction? 

message: Wouldn't a longa with no stem be a breve? 23191Pa (chat me!) 13:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: yes. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the stem really (like in the image) coming out from the other side to that of, for example, a minim? Double sharp (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The stem of a longa is always at the right of the (square) note head, whether ascending or descending. In the notational practice of the period in which the longa was used, a minim usually had a lozenge-shaped note head, with the stem either descending or ascending from the centre. There is a table here that should clarify matters somewhat.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. (BTW, I meant the current minim, but that doesn't matter.) Double sharp (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I assumed you meant the current form of the minim. My point is that the longa is not really a part of modern musical notation, though I suppose it may occur, even if only rarely. Therefore one might reasonably expect that the rules of its formation may not conform entirely to those of modern notation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Stem

message: It sort of leads a phantom existence in MuseScore, where one way of inserting very long notes is to "spill over" to the next measure: the tying is automatically done. It gets a glyph for its note and rest and gets called a "quadruple whole note" in the glossary. (Not the maxima, though.) Double sharp (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  modern use 

message: So you can make them square! (@_@) You need to set the notehead style to Baroque (which also provides a glyph for the maxima: in default style, you can insert maximas but they won't show up). However it seems as though the Wikipedia implementation doesn't cover that. Double sharp (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lilypond breve, longa, and maxima
Talk:Major seventh

message: How can the 9:5 ratio (which forms an octave with the 10:9 minor tone) be called a "small major 7th"? Among 5-limit ratios, only 50:27 and 243:128 (a comma below and above the just 15:8) also qualify as major 7ths. 9:5 is a comma above the 16:9 Pythagorean minor 7th and is properly termed a just minor 7th. — Glenn L (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  9:5 ratio
Talk:USS Austin (1839)

message: I propose the merger of this article with Texan sloop-of-war Austin for the following reasons:
:1. The Texan sloop-of-war article is very close to a B-class article and could use the graphic from this article to complete the supplemental material to increase its quality rating to a B.
:2. The ship in question spent very little time (2 years) as the USS Austin with no notable service (notability and overlap). It is highly unlikely any additional material will be added for this 2 year period when the ship was waiting to be broken up.
:3. Most of the information in this article is already in the Texas sloop-of-war article (content). Not much merging needed.
I recommend making the USS Austin (1839) a redirect to the Texan sloop-of-war article after merger is complete.
Any support or opposition? - Canglesea (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal
Talk:Neighbor group

message: *Changing tone
*Neighbor group
These two articles are identical and self-referential. Why not just merge them?  --Jubilee♫clipman 02:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done under Changing tones. Hyacinth (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Notehead

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) 22:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I added the one source cited in this article, it had no sources.  The information in the second two paragraphs of the "History" section come from information from that source.  Nothing else in the article is sourced.  So the description of the note head is not cited and the first paragraph of the "History" section is not cited.  It simply needs Verifiable Sources to be added using the "Cite" tool on the toolbar of the edit screen.  You can find an extensive explanation on the page Wikipedia:Citing sources.  I hope this helps :-)  (Lexandalf (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional citations

message: It would be helpful for the article to specify what the different note-heads mean in simple terms. In particular, the significance of the diamond-shaped note could use better explanation, as it's not clearly defined, and there aren't links to clarifying articles. I played for years in school, never encountered diamond note-heads, and am still somewhat unclear about them after reading this article. Even the List of musical symbols article doesn't explain them. Sacxpert (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Different note-heads
Talk:Number (music)

message: I have no idea whether this is regarded as "trivia," hence I thought I'd write it here. In Danish language, the term "nummer" is used to refer to any musical piece. gamle nummer = "old (musical) piece". -andy 92.230.14.202 (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FWIW 

message: I realise there's a bit of snobbery in opera discussion, which can lead to rather narrow focuses in some of the books about it, but that basically denies the entire light opera and operetta tradition, which kept up number operas well past Wagner; indeed, if you accept the modern musical as the descendant of this tradition, it never stopped to this day. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In fact, almost all operatic composers subsequent to Wagner adopted this procedure." 

message: Technically, isn't that the long-standing trend in opera as well? I mean, you could make a case that baroque operas often had much of the plot happening in the recitatives between the songs proper, but as you move forwards in opera history, you get more and more of what Kern's quote suggests. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "musical numbers should carry on the action of the play, and should be representative of the personalities of the characters who sing them." 

message: hi 75.117.217.117 (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  hi
Talk:Octave species

message: @User: Feline Hymnic @User: Jerome Kohl @User: Olorulus:
Is there not a way to simplify this article so that a person of ordinary literacy can understand it? After all the purpose of an encyclopedia is to introduce people to ideas, not to be a forum for professionals to express their theories and discuss the fine points of their discipline. 
Among other things, such a simplification entails defining basic terms before one uses them in complex statements. The concepts have to be built up from more readily understood precursors.
The subtleties can be kept if need be in footnotes, but even footnotes should have as their main purpose to refer the reader to source materials or to authorities where more detailed treatment can be found. -Wwallacee (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  Sadly, Jerome Kohl died, I think around August last year (2020).  And the article was mostly his.  The only reason I appear on this talk page is because I, too, had been struggling with it and asking similar questions. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed above. Feel free to improve the article, with reputable sources. IMO, some subjects are inherently technical and obscure. Reading the discussion above and looking at the article's sources, this seems to be the case here and at several related articles. OTOH, such technical articles are prevalent in many other encyclopedic areas, e.g. in graph theory where I don't understand a single article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.  Let's accept that the exploration of "octave species" is inherently deeply technical, analogous to your "graph theory" example.  (I've been an amateur church musician most of my life, but I was unable even to get a tenuous fingerhold on this "octave species" thing from this article and background knowledge.)  But I still get the feeling that we ought to be able to provide some sort of bearing, however imprecise, in the lead; to provide that fingerhold.  Having had another rummage around Google since my note yesterday, it appears that musical "mode" might be such a point of contact.  If so, might the lead say something that relates the obscure "octave species" to the more familiar (even if not everyday) "mode"?  Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is too technical
Talk:One drop rhythm

message: The music sample provided is far too robotic and stiff to truly sound like a one drop reggae rhythm. Rodney420 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a MIDI file, it is a robot. Hyacinth (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lame Music Sample
Talk:Period (music)

message: "a period is a group of phrases consisting usually of at least one antecedent phrase and one consequent phrase totaling about 8 measures in length"—this is such an inadequate definition that it's hard to know where to start in fixing it. Tony (talk)  13:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestions. Hyacinth (talk) 07:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Inadequate
Talk:Pesante

message: I take issue with the article's notion that "pesante" is somehow related to tempo.  Any "widespread use" of this term as an indication of a slower tempo is a matter of individual interpretation and possibly even a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term.  Nonetheless, such practice has nothing to do with intention of the composer.  "Pesante" can be applied to any tempo from Lento to Vivace and CERTAINLY does not indicate "an immediate pulling back of a previous tempo."  If that were the case, the term "pesante" would be accompanied by another term such as "meno mosso." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.55.254 (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has responded to this in over a decade, and I agree the content is nonsense. It is also not supported by the sources cited, so I will remove it. --188.30.17.254 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment
Talk:Satz

message: Hi all, I randomly came across this article-ette, and felt it could do with a bit more fleshing out, enlarging on the various German uses of the word, mostly from German Wikipedia. I've translated some of the German terms, I'm happy to do some more. I have moved a number of existing sentences around, but I think that everything in the original stub is still here somewhere.
;End hidden section
Thoughts, anyone? MinorProphet (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Courtsey pings: , . MinorProphet (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the ping. Knock yourself out. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  ;) MinorProphet (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of current stub
Talk:Section (music)

message: Which part of this article is confusing or unclear and how? Hyacinth (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs examples  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.89.36 (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand. It already includes a list of examples: "Types of sections include the introduction or intro, exposition, recapitulation, verse, chorus or refrain, conclusion, coda or outro, fadeout, bridge or interlude." Hyacinth (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing

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? 00:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move: "Musical scale" → "Scale (music)" 

message: Souvenir 41.186.78.153 (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Souvenir
Talk:Semicomma

message: *"It is derived from the difference in pitch between three justly tuned perfect fifths and seven just minor thirds (begun on the same root). An equal definition is that it is the difference between four minor thirds and three minor thirds...In equal temperament, however, the resulting notes are enharmonic equivalents (A = C) and there is no difference."
The above definitions don't make sense. For example, a minor third is 316 cents and the difference between 4 X 316 and 3 X 316 is 316 (1,264-948=316), not 10 cents. Hyacinth (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Derivation
Talk:Shout-and-fall

message: I don't believe that the second paragraph of this page will be useful to anyone. In particular, the word "gesturally" seems utterly meaningless except possibly to the original author. The link to "deep structure" doesn't particularly clarify what that means in this context either.
I'm leaving it in, as it seems slightly better than nothing, and may point someone onward for further study. But if anyone can clarify or improve this, it might prevent some readers from crying.
Folding Chair (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The first paragraph isn't too great either. This article never actually defines what the phenomenon is, just gives an example and some impressionistic quotes. · rodii · 20:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Second paragraph

message: The article is almost completely useless. There is not even a description or definition of what shout-and-fall is, how it's defined, or why it's noteable. It's possible that it's written in obscure jargon that means something to someone, but in the absence of any definition or even context, the article is nothing more than gobbledegook. It should really be re-written from scratch, or deleted. Is there anybody that knows about shout-and-fall that could actually write something comprehensible and relevant?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.62.237 (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Some examples of where it occurs in famous music would be helpful. Equinox ◑ 04:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Useless
Talk:Simple metre

message: This article does not lend itself to sufficient expansion, and will never be anything more than a stub. It should be merged with Meter (music), into an appropriate section. Any objections or other thoughts? --Jeeves (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: This article says that 3/4 has 3 beats, which is correct. However, it also says that each beat is divided into 2 parts. This is not necessarily correct. The number of parts each beat can be divided into can be 1, 2, 3, or 4. Info on each choice: 1 quarter note, 2 eighth notes, 3 eighth note triplets, or 4 sixteenth notes. It's still 3/4 regardless of how it is divided. Georgia guy (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I see the source of confusion.  The article is actually about 'simple metre', rather than about 3/4, and the characteristic subdivision of the simple-metre beat into two. So I think the article is correct within its context. But I'll see whether the wording might be clarified. Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please fix this article
Talk:Invariances of music

message: There is at least one more musical "symmetry:" tuning invariance, discussed in Wikipedia's entry on Dynamic_Tonality. This page should be renamed "Invariances of music," removing both the number "six" and replacing the word "symmetry" with the more precise "invariance."JimPlamondon (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tuning invariance

message: Why, what, where, and how does this article contain original research and how should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: I am nominating this article for speedy deletion under criterion G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. The only reference is a page the website of Philip Donnell, who seems to be the only person talking about this idea - searches on Google News, Books, and Scholar for "invariances of music" turned up no notable references. The article's only purpose is the promotion of a set of ideas which appear to have no notability whatsoever - even the link to "Amplitude scaling invariance" redirects to an article that contains no reference to that term. Although lack of notability in itself is not a criterion for speedy deletion, the promotional nature of this page seems obvious and unambiguous to me. Brian2357 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion nomination
Talk:Sound object

message: Why is the shakuhachi explicitly mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.45.140.205 (talk) 07:08, October 27, 2011 (UTC)
:Presumably it used to be explicitly mentioned because of the great variety of sound effects and huge dynamic and durational range capable on the shakuhachi depending on how you blow on the edge at what angle for how hard for how long. Hyacinth (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Shakuhachi

message: What in this article needs to be cited? When pages are tagged explanations should be given on the talk page or within the template in order to assist other editors in fixing the problems that you identify. Hyacinth (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: How is this article a messy rambling essay suffused with bias? When pages are tagged explanations should be given on the talk page or within the template in order to assist other editors in fixing the problems that you identify. Hyacinth (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Essay/rambling/bias
Talk:Stem (music)

message: I was looking for a reference to dual stemmed notation for piano.  Not finding any I would like to offer an attached figure for discussion and further explication by someone more knowledgeable than I.
Except that I do not know how to attach a jpg graphic to this talk topic.  
The figure illustrates my understanding of how a double stemmed phrase is written versus played.
--ArvinRex (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ' Dual Stemmed Notes' 

message: I've proposed that this page be merged with Note because this would fit nicely in the "Written notes" section of that article. Having a whole article based upon what could just be one or two paragraphs seems overly explanatory and cumbersome. Does anyone agree? Scrat (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: In audio production stem has a very specific and different meaning than the stem on a musical note
Sort of like the stem of a note and the stem of a cherry. Robert.Harker (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating production part to separate article
Talk:Subdominant parallel

message: I propose that Subdominant parallel be merged into Supertonic. 
*Support - It's just a synonym of Supertonic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It will never be expanded. It's just an alternative name created by Hugo Riemann.--Fauban 12:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It reads like you are talking to yourself. How does WP:NOTDIC apply? Why wouldn't "supertonic" be merged into "subdominant parallel"? Hyacinth (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

text: So one might say that this proposal was incomplete, botched/inaccurate, or disingenuous. This is because you said this article should be merged into "Subdominant", but you really mean that it should be merged into "Diatonic function". Hyacinth (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

text: If one looks at a dictionary entry and this article, they do not resemble one another. Hyacinth (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

text: What justifies separate articles, and what justifies merging? Hyacinth (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal
Talk:Symmetric scale

message: Isn't a symmetric scale one that with intervals H - W - W - 3 - H - H - W ?
So with C that would be C C# Eb F G# A A# C .... ArdClose (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Persichetti calls the ordinary Diminished scale the "Symmetrical" scale, and one of the form H - 3 - H - 3 - H - 3, such as C Db E F G# A C, the "Six-note Symmetrical" scale. The scale quoted by ArdClose would be better written as C Db Eb F G# A Bb C. It displays a symmetry of an unusual sort, with the semitones and tones mirroring one another above and below the augmented second. Along with scales whose symmetry consists of mapping into themselves by inversion (such as the Dorian, Neapolitan Major or Double Harmonic), it serves to illustrate why a theorist who proposes to define a term as general as "symmetric" in the specific way indicated in this article might be better suited to a career whose demands impose less strain on his intellectual equipment. Fenneck (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symmetry scale? 

message: Asymmetric scales are "far more common" than symmetric scales and this may be accounted for by the inability of symmetric scales to possess the property of uniqueness (containing each interval class a unique number of times) which assists with determining the location of notes in relation to the first note of the scale.
Does anyone here (including the editor who added this sentence) actually understand its meaning? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying you don't understand what it means or that it is unclear to you? Hyacinth (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand what "uniqueness" means in this context. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See diatonic set theory, specifically the work of Gerald Balzano and Fred Lerdahl (http://eamusic.dartmouth.edu/~kov/lerdahl/balzano.html). Hyacinth (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, thanks for sharing this. However, I believe each of these terms deserves an article of its own. Since I still need to read this thing several times to fully understand it, I cannot write the articles at the current moment, would you like to start it off? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniqueness?