Talk:Music theory

To do

• I'm just starting to develop an interest in music, so I'm absolutely unknowledgeable in the language and vocabulary of the subject - basically the 'average wikipedia reader'. As such, this page is, and I'm not exaggerating, illegible to me. I can't learn anything new from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.189.48.2 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Some clarification needs to be made between different schools of terminology. For instance, there needs to be a page explaining the difference between Classical, East Coast/Berklee Jazz and West Coast/Commercial pop nomenclature, particularly on the chord page which currently betrays a definite Berklee bias, because that's how I think. I'm currently trying to draft someone that I know would be capable of doing it, but if someone else feels up to the task, please do so.
• The tuning page is a night mare. It needs some sort of major overhaul, and the task is so large that no one has yet been willing to take it on.
• There are a number of sub articles, such as chord, scale, and counterpoint which rightfully belong as sub headings of Harmony. How exactly to go about this, I'm not quite sure.
• The pages are currently quite weak on History. There has been some effort to add entries on individual composers, and those efforts are to be applauded, but as far as an actual overview of Music History goes, we are currently very lacking.
• Finally, and most dauntingly, many of the pages as they now exist are still rife with error, and many pages need large re-writes. This only adds to the incoherence on this topic which is introduced due to inconsistent use of terminology. The terminology issue is something that we need to get out in the open, and there needs to be established a definite default nomenclature for theoretical matters. I think that the traditional classical music approach should probably be deferred to, with treatment within that with differences in terminology. For instance, when dealing with chords, the lower case roman numerals should always be used for minor chords.

These are just some thoughts, and I'd really like to hear what other people think. I'm new to Wikipedia myself, but I've already become quite taken with concept. Unfortunately, I think there are really only a few of us at this point who have the background to properly address the topic. To that end, I think that we should all make the effort to try to recruit more people to the cause so that this resource can become as complete and usefull as I know it can. JFQ

I agree. We're lacking a lot in this area, and a big clean-up is needed. We may as well use this talk page as our base of operations.

• Tuning Page: I'll start moving text from the tuning articles back in.

You are braver than I.JFQ

done. it's still a mess, but we can see at a glance what we're dealing with. -- t.

• Terminology: How about we create a Music Terminology page? Bring in the debates on "tone" and "note" and "pitch" from other pages -- they'll be useful too for definitions of the concepts. -- Tarquin

Excellent Idea. I'll get on that. JFQ

I'd like to say that, as a reader who understands enough to grasp much of the music topic but not enough to contribute in any real way, that it's pretty confusing and disjointed, overall. How to solve it is not so easy to say, but tightening up some of the articles would help. A good, clear navigation page would work miracles. As it is you need to depend on whether there is a link or not to get more, and often the link you might want is wrong or missing. Chords and chord progressions is a good example - the info is so spread out and disjointed that it is difficult to get it unless you already know it. I know much of it, but a lot of it assumes knowlege, where maybe some basics would help for newcomers wanting to learn from scratch. Any good music book does a better job of describing the relationships between scales and chords more clearly than is here. Unfortunately, again, I'm not knowlegeable enough to edit this - I'm looking from a reader's view. Jjdon (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a background in music theory. I want to address a few of the above concerns. One of the reasons the article seems so disjointed is that there is no real standard way to "organize" the fundamentals of music like, say you might for some area of study objective in nature, such as Chemistry. I suggest generally following the sequence used in published theory books such as "Tonal Harmony" by Kostka and Payne. Essentially, our article here does not flow an overall logical pattern. Right now it looks like a puzzle that has some pieces in place, some scattered on the side and some not there at all. "Music Theory" is a very, very large subject it describes the subjective interpretation of art, it's a science but it's closer to studying anthropology or psychology, than chemistry or physics, so it is very difficult to pin down "the rules". Another consideration is that the article really needs to distinguish between Western traditional common practice, 20th Century practice, and different practices from around the world. I will try to do some editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnibus progression (talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Intro

So I recently changed the intro paragraph to: "Music theory is a term for ways to think about music. In its broadest sense theory ranges from highly technical theories to the most basic assumptions such as which music is 'good.'"Hyacinth

This was an improvement over the previous: "Music theory is a way to think about music," since there are many music theories.

Camembert change my sentence to: "Music theory is the body of theory concerning music, as opposed to its performance. In its broadest sense theory ranges from the highly technical to the most basic assumptions such as what constitutes a 'note,'" since, "i'd not say deciding whether something is "good" is basic at all."

then to: "Music theory is the body of theory concerning music, as opposed to its performance. In its broadest sense theory ranges from the highly technical to apparently basic assumptions such as what constitutes a 'note,'" since, "maybe even that's not straightforward."

Camembert- I agree with taking out "good" but I don't think that your final sentence is otherwise an improvement. I think there are many music theories (as the above discussion recognizes). Traditional music theory actually is concerned with performance, in addition to the culture music is created in. Currently the latest version of the sentence excludes these topics. Also, both of us have been saying, "Music theory is theory about music," which is not the ideal first sentence. I leave the article as is (with your changes intact) until I have a better sentence to propose. Hyacinth

to explain...the split here is that some music theory has these very complex technical constructs, but these are all answers to simple questions compared to the most important questions, "Is it good?" "What makes it good?" These are handled mostly in the popular realm with very simple vernacular, not complex technical language. I wanted to touch on this breadth and depth in my revision of the intro.Hyacinth

Well, I just quickly edited the page to remove a "refers to" in the first sentence (it's a pet hate some people have, and I thought I'd change it before somebody else did) and to get rid of the implication that deciding whether music was good or not was a "basic assumption" - I agree that the end result isn't very beautiful, feel free to hack it about. For now, I'll remove the bit about theory being opposed to performance (I just meant to say that... well, it's theoretical rather than practical, but maybe it's superfluous to spell that out), and fiddle with the rest a bit, but really, it's hard to say anything very constructive about the subject, I think, because it's just too broad, and different people mean different things by the term. This page just seems to be serving as a gateway to some others. Of course, if you can do anything more interesting with it, feel free :) --Camembert

Hayacinth, I think it should be pointed out that weather or not music is "good" is firstly in the eye of the beholder and secondly, has NOTHING to do woth music theory. Music theory only pertains to the technical knowledge required to read, play and create music. Music theory does not relate to emotive interpretation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzlgrant (talk • contribs) 01:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What's all this about pitches?

I utterly disagree with the following statement.

"A melody is a series of pitches sounding in succession."

I contend that a melody is a series of notes, and not of pitches, and that the distinction is crucial to understanding music theory, which has a long history among musicians and composers, predating notions of pitches (as countable things) by ages. Pitch, in the sense which associates it with frequencies, is a modern physical concept unrelated to music theory.

The fact that the word "note" is used in an astonishing number of ways ought not deter us from speaking precisely. D021317c 01:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A note is more than a simple instance of pitch. It is a transient "atom of music" with a beginning, middle, and end, sometimes represented by an ADSR envelope and may contain subtle variations of pitch, often also related to that envelope, or to similar time-dependent happenings. __Just plain Bill (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A note is the abstract, written representation of a tone. To one reading or writing a musical score, a melody may be a succession of notes. But to the listener it is a succession of tones. I am modifying the definition of melody in the article accordingly.Valmont7 (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Geographical Imbalance

I added the geographical imbalance template because this page is written almost exclusively from the perspective of western classical music from the common practice period. Music theory encompasses all sorts of other things, for example, jazz theory, theory of chinese music, Indian classical music, middle eastern music, modern 20th century classical music, and western music before the common practice period, etc. All of these things depart rather far from the material on this page; a lot of the statements here are vague, the sort of thing you might encounter in an introductory music theory course, and which apply only to a very narrow subset of western music. I think this page needs extensive work before the geographical imbalance template is removed. Cazort (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to basically be an entry page to a series of other separate articles. What specific topics are being ommited? You did not provide the name of any Chinese music theory which is missing from this article. The editor adding a template has the burden of justifying it. You have the onus of stating at least one specific theoretical concept in Chinese music, Indian, jazz etc, which is not included in this article to suggest a geographic bias. Without stating what is missing, there is no justification for for the template. What you have provided is not enough to convince me of a bias. You simply said "Music theory encompasses all sorts of other things," What are those other things? "Jazz theory" is not another thing. It is merely the label for a specific subset of "music theory" that is especially relevant to jazz. There is nothing in what you have stated to convince me that this article doesn't include all of those things. Likewise, as far as you know, "Chinese music" is simply a genre of music that fits in the general framework of music included in this theoretical model. I don't know anything about Chinese music but if you know of the specific bias, you must also know what is specifically missing from this article, in a way to refer to it more precisely than "other things". As it stands it seems like you are merely assuming this article doesn't cover any other kind of music and you've rattled off a list of kinds of music rather than rattling off a list of specific theoretical concepts which are geographically distinct to those kinds of music and missing from this article. The template has not been justified. I'm not saying the article is biased or not. I'm just saying without specific proof of bias we have no choice but to assume that the editors who filled this article with factually verifiable information made an acceptably unbiased representation of the subject. TheDarknessVisible (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Name "any Chinese music theory which is" included in this article. Hyacinth (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think what Cazort says is that not all music use the western temperaments and scales, Arabic Music or Indian classical music for example. So the western theory doesn't apply to them, or at least not fully - you can't construct harmonies the same way in an entirely different kind of scale with 1/4 notes and all. As for jazz, it is western, so it is based on what's written here, and though there are some extensions, I don't think they need to be mentioned. Karom (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps qualifying this article with the fact that "Music Theory" as in the scope of the article is born out of the tradition of Western Music, then demonstrating that as time went on (perhaps starting with Debussy) that Western Music Theory began to incorporate elements of Music from non-Western cultures. It should also be noted that there is a juncture between Music Theory and Ethnomusicology...A history of Music Theory section (written by someone with real music history chops) would perhaps soothe and abate any divisive discussion on the issue. Comments?

SteppAN (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree, the article should be either written with a more international scope, or it should be presented explicitly as Western music theory. 

As it stands now, the article is clearly Western with such topics as Bach four part writing, set theory, and a list of theorists (Schoenberg,

Schenker, Lewin etc.), not one of which which is non-Western.  The lead section could at least link readers to other major areas of the world such 

as Indian, Arabic, Japanese, and Chinese music theory.  --Baumgaertner (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

  

Chorale Section

The chorale section is a bit long for an overview article. Not that any information is bad; there is simply too much information. My suggestion: The second paragraph is at once too limited and too wide in scope. It gives the basic overview of Roman Numeral analysis (which, although strongly tied to chorale writing, it by no means is exclusive) then going off on a tangent using Shenkerian analysis, which (again) is not exclusive to chorale writing. The third paragraph is full of information, but does not seem to appropriately elaborate on the existing material for an overview. Perhaps a new article on chorale writing? Then we could have a section demonstrating the importance of chorales, a section giving the pedagogical uses of the chorale, and perhaps a simple theoretical demonstration of the procedure of chorale writing? This would help this section from being far longer than any other section. The first paragraph could also use some editing, however it serves as an (IMHO) overview without overstaying the reader's welcome.

SteppAN (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

One Source Tag Removal

As of today (5 Jun) I have removed the "One Source" tag. I have started the process of adding in sources, but this is a long process. If others could also at the minimum add the source in the Sources section, the process of making this article improve would go leaps and bounds... Thanks

SteppAN (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

External links

External links are generally discouraged. If any links are to be restored an editor should undoubtedly justify why the link is relevant and, more importantly, why the information at that link cannot be added to the article as content. aruffo (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Middle C = 256 Hz

I removed a sentence that mentioned middle C was once set to 256 Hz. It was in the 'Pitch' section which already has a link to the main article Pitch (music), making it unnecessary to go into detail on this page regarding pitch history. Man, middle C had a LOT of values throughout history; why would we talk about only one alternate here? Binksternet (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the ref, Bill. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[Moved here from user talk page.] Please don't add the 256 Hz information to the Music theory article. As I've already said at Talk:Music_theory#Middle_C_.3D_256_Hz, the information is too much detail for that article. It's also pushing a point of view: middle C has had many different values over history--why would we mention only one of them? I would like to hear your reasoning for this very lopsided addition. Feel free to discuss the matter over at the music theory talk page. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That particular information on C 256, does not exist in the main article. If you want to move it there, fine. Otherwise, stop trying to destroy the information. I object the idea that destruction of pertinent information is in any way good editing. The C 256 standard is unique in that it is the only time pitch was arbitrarily assigned for mathematical convenience (as octaves of 1 Hz, corresponding exactly with the standard scientific unit of time, the second). All other pitch standards (as far as I know) have been for aesthetic reasons. This information is pertinent and cited. Treat it right. Move it or leave it alone. -- Another Stickler (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Look again: there is indeed a bit about 256 Hz over at the Pitch (music) article. I'm not destroying information, I'm keeping this article trim and clean so that readers can pick and choose where to go next for more detail.

By the way, every pitch standard can be seen as unique for one reason or another; historic reasons include aesthetic, convenience, the establishment of a position and the bending to circumstance. Your repeated introduction of this one pitch standard founded on purely mathematical reasons is beginning to look like a crusade to have it brought forward again into the public mind. Wikipedia is not the place for such a campaign. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's "a bit" about C 256 in the Pitch (music), but it is explained and cited better here, and that should not be lost. Wikipedia is by design a repository for reliable information. The most important thing is that the information is brought into the body of wikipedia. Slightly subordinate to that is organization of the information into the proper categories. Articles sometimes split and merge and sometimes overlap. What we have here is a case of multiple articles being proper places for a particular datum. This article is supposed to give an overview of music theory, and point to other articles where appropriate. In my opinion, in this article, two examples are good to show that there are multiple pitch standards in music theory. Any larger list belongs in Pitch. Any shorter gives the impression that there is only one standard. If your opinion is that one example suffices, fine, I don't hold that opinion strongly enough to stop you from moving one of them to Pitch. I will stop you from destroying the information however. It should not be removed from the body of wikipedia simply because you have an opinion that it belongs elsewhere but are too lazy to move it. -- Another Stickler (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

As an editor who has chosen to keep an eye on the music theory article because of persistent vandalism, my only concern is to keep this article in fighting trim. I don't have the responsibility of replacing information that is inappropriately added here—I'm not breaking any Wikipedia editing rules by not acting further to save the deleted information.

You say it's "explained and cited better here" but here we only have one sentence and the cite is malformed in that it lacks the HTML ref tags in front of the URL followed by the /ref tag after. A better reference would be to a standard music theory textbook and a better place for further explanation of the would-be standard continues to be Pitch (music). Binksternet (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

<==I just realized that the Schiller Institute is involved with a campaign to change the standard pitch notation to A=430.54 Hz and C=256 Hz. Their petition can be found here. I am removing the C=256 bit for reasons of WP:NPOV: its inclusion violates the requirement for this article to remain neutral. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating! Thanks for pointing that out. Appropriate mention in Pitch (music) of various legislative attempts to rule the world of music would be nice, including some background motivation for the ISO "standard" 440, but I'm in no hurry here. __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

First, there's no POV in a statement of historical fact. There's no value judgement in giving two examples. You, Binksternet, are creating the POV straw man to try to mislead the discussion away from your own laziness and irresponsible editing. Deleting information that should be moved is bad editing, plain and simple, and yes, you are responsible for the changes you make. Second, there's nothing wrong with an inline link. If there were, the interface wouldn't support it. A link to full text is better than the title of a book with no quote and no page number, or no citation at all. And a third thing, which shows you don't understand the math of tuning: C 256 is not equivalent to A 430.54. In 12-tone equal temperament, the interval between middle C and middle A is the 3/4 root of 2, an irrational number, not expressible as a decimal fraction (it would continue forever without repeating). Windows' calculator estimates C 256 as producing A 430.53896460990184603193624383141 etc. If you're going to say 430.54, you have to say "approximately". Fourth, I was not aware of any petition to lower the Italian pitch standard to that of Verdi's day, but in my opinion, it's unnecessary, since groups already have the choice to use period tunings if they wish. Fifth, in conclusion, Binksternet, you're taking this too far. You need to stop damaging the Music theory article, move the information to the Pitch article, and let go of the straw man. -- Another Stickler (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes... my laziness and irresponsible editing. I've written 36 articles, added thousands of words of solid text and references to other people's articles, taken a handful to GA-Class, and I typically make between 500 and 1,200 edits per month. I think I have my laziness and irresponsibility well in hand. o_O

The straw man is yours. You say I'm destroying information but it has been and still is available at the correct page: Pitch (music). There simply is no need to have a not-very-widely-used tuning concept mentioned here in this very brief summary of pitch. Binksternet (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've stumbled over this and feel compelled to comment. Bink's observations about the non specialness of 256Hz settle the issue. That standard tuning has been drifting higher for some centuries has little to do with music theory (save perhaps to note this fact). And there is nothing musically special (mathematical elegance to the contrary notwithstanding) about 256Hz. An article on standard pitch (or concert pitch) might be well and would be the natural place for such a point as you seem to making. Do we have either? But not here. Bink's right, and the consensus (such as it is) is against you. Your next step, should you choose to take it, might be to appeal to other editors (at the Village Pump, perhaps) in an attempt to create a new consensus. At this point, the issue is essentially settled, in my view. ww (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

See "philosophical pitch" in Pitch_(music)#19th_and_20th_century_standards. __Just plain Bill (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Prime time signatures

I believe some Balkan and North African music traditions, among others, use prime numbers in their time "signatures." and have done since beyond memory. My own personal feeling is that it gives the music an organic feel, rather than random, as stated in this change. Need to cite some source, of course. __Just plain Bill (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed and not only Balkan and North African. The mathmatical ratios 3/2, 4/3, 5/4, 6/5, etc. excist in every tuning system except the Western 12 TET. Source:[1], please revert the sentence as mentioned in the article. Good consonant sound is caused by integer ratios.83.87.170.234 (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That too, simple integer ratios for pitch intervals, but talking about time signatures here, in relation to this diff. The rhythmic pulse of by far the bulk of Western European art music may be counted in 2, 3 or 4, or some multiple of those. __Just plain Bill (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I read it with a wrong view. Perhaps, I don't know about the time signatures. It seems a pointless sentence.83.87.170.234 (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Would it be possible to add http://www.classicalmusichomepage.com/reference/theory-and-analysis under external links? This is a page dedicated to the best online music theory and analysis reference materials. Thanks. Ndifrancesco (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see that page is merely a container for links to other sites, some of them useful. The site itself requires registration, which doesn't bode well for wide-spread approval here. There are also too many advertisements. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If the reference materials are so good, use them here in the article. We don't need that link. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Equal Temperament

'Bach participated in these controversies with his extensive exploration of the Well Tempered Clavier which demonstrated the inevitable musical difficulties which attend any but a choice of equal temperament tuning.'

Im not sure what this is intended to mean, I don't know whether its just me but I find the wording unclear. If its saying that the Well Tempered Clavier used an equal tempered tuning system this is not correct. There are differences between Equal tuning, Well Temepered tunings and other baroque style tunings. Equal tuning refers to the tuning used on most modern pianos today where each semitone is exactly the same interval but technically all equally out of tune (except from octaves). Baroque tunings such as mean tone kept some intervals correctly in tune (I think mean tone is 3rds but im not sure!) at the expense of other intervals sounding more out of tune this means that some keys have greater colour but some keys simply do not work because of some intervals being far out of tune. Well Tempered tuning refers to a wide set of tuning systems where they are not equally tuned but there are small differences so as to make all keys accesible which is why Bach composed pieces in all keys to show off the new tuning systems which were accesible in all keys but are not equal tuning. Hope that makes some sense, and I hope most of its correct. Sorry if I misinterpreted the sentence but it just didnt seem clear if that was the intended meaning (Andrew2601 (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.113.157 (talk) 23:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Neuromusicology

I'm working on a new article and want to invite anyone knowledgeable about the field to add to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Schyler/Neuromusicology

schyler (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Organization of "Musical Elements"

I suggest some major changes here. Right now these "musical elements" are not in any logical order. I suggest moving each paragraph of description like the following: Pitch (sound occurrance); Rhythm (time); Melody (sound occurance + time); Harmony (multiple "melodies"); Allocation (the number and function melodies and/or voices), Texture (the function of allocation); Dynamics and Articulation (Expressive qualities); Form and Structure. "Consonance and dissonance" I would put somewhere else as it is not an actual element of music but is a perception. "Scales and modes" I would also put elsewhere because they describe a certain theory within the larger musical context, e.g. all different culture have developed different scales/modes/sequences.Omnibus progression (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have gone through and made the above changes. The next thing I would like to do is change the title, "Elements of Music" to "Fundamentals of Music". The latter is what is used the the Kostka & Payne book on the basics of music theory. I would also like to match the description of each of these "elements" or "fundamentals" to what is below, thus I would need to add timbre, which I will provide a basic definition and description of. I would also like to add Allocation, which is another fundamental that we have missed. Omnibus progression (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest changing the phrase "Pitch is a subjective sensation, reflecting generally the lowness or highness of a sound." The first part of it seems, "Pitch is a subjective sensation" I do not think is a standard view held among musicians and musicologists, (I have never that before myself, nor have I seen it written anywhere). Furthermore it is not cited. I suggest changing it to, "Pitch in music refers to the highness of lowness of sound", as defined by "Tonal Harmony" by Kostka & Payne (5th ed.) which is the most widely used textbook on music theory in colleges today. Omnibus progression (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have never seen pitch defined as a subjective sensation, then I suggest you look in any standard acoustics text or, more succinctly, in the article "Pitch" by Anthony Baines and Nicholas Temperley in The Oxford Companion to Music, which begins: "A basic dimension of musical sounds, in which they are heard to be high or low. … The subjective sense of pitch is closely correlated with frequency (number of sound vibrations per second). Experiments have shown that the correlation is not exact".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that I mentioned the standard text, "Tonal Harmony" by Kostka and Payne, where pitch as a subjective sensation is not mentioned. However, my objection is less that it is not a commonly held view, and more that it was not cited, (as are many things in this article). I would then like to bring up the question of placement. Why is it important to first know that pitch is a subjective sensation, if the term "pitch" has not been defined? I do not disagree that it should be mentioned if there are sources to back it up, but I would like to restate the sentence. It seems to me more important to communicate pitch is the "highness or lowness of sound" (which it is regardless of how people hear it) than it is to first state that "pitch is subjective". I suggest changing it to: "Pitch is the highness or lowness of sound. In addition, it should be noted that pitch is a subjective sensation. Some musicologists have noted that the subjective sense of pitch is closely correlated with frequency (the number of sound vibrations per second); however, experiments show that the correlation is not exact." (source cited.)Omnibus progression (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the additions I have just made address most of your concerns. Take a look and see what you think. The problem with simply defining pith as "highness or lowness" is that it does not explain what is being used to measure this "highness or lowness". A frequency meter measures highness and lowness, but does not measure pitch (unless, of course, you accept Helmholtz's now outdated view that frequency and pitch are in an exact one-to-one correspondence). Pitch is measured by human listeners, and their judgment is therefore, by definition, subjective. Whether Kostka and Payne use the word or not, what they describe is a subjective, not an objective phenomenon. This is now formally cited in the article.

On your other point, I wholeheartedly agree that this article is woefully short on citations. It has been on my "watch" list for a long time now, but I have not devoted the amount of time to it that it deserves. Perhaps I will do so now.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional citations

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical Issues and Syntax

There are issues with grammar and syntax throughout the article. Refer to the second sentence in section one under "Theories of Harmonization." The following sentence is a fragment, "In the German musicology tradition referred to as functional harmony." Furthermore, there is excessive comma use throughout the first paragraph. These issues must be resolved in order to improve readability.--Jutland86 (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Western" vs. European

The whole article is talking about "Western" music and musical tradition, when it means about European. The concept of Dur/Mol scales (Major and minor in your "western" speak) is not property of "Western" cultures, as they were, of course, not the only one creating and categorizing music. The modi of scales ("modes") are Roman and Greek representation of specific creating/playing methods, and are not "Western", also. The system of 12 notes in a scale, with the today's standardized tonality, is a mixture between Eastern and Western European music, and thus, is not exclusively "Western". Hence, my request for this article to be rewritten using European instead of Western, without petty attempts to steal history for yourself. Thank you. MakedekaM (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you think is meant by "western" in this context? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably "western" as in western vs. eastern Europe. It is equally confusing even if the point was western = european vs. eastern = asian. MakedekaM (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Would it help to link the word, like this?: Western. The usual synonym, "Occidental", redirects to that article. Roman and Greek culture is generally regarded as the ultimate source of the Western tradition, though in a more recent frame of reference "European" excludes the Americas, Australia, and other regions generally considered to fall within the Occidental sphere. When referring to Western Europe, is almost always necessary to include the word "European".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe the European/Asian difference in the old world applies better here. What main points of confusion do you see with that? I agree that North African, South Asian, and Oceanian music theories, to name only a few broad categories, may be lightly represented in the article. How do you suggest improving that? There may be a path to them through the {{Music topics}} portal. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

@Jerome Kohl: no, it wouldn't help linking the word like that, as that excludes around 20 countries of Europe (former Yugoslav republics, Romania, Bulgaria, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, basically all the former Warsaw Pact countries) which contributed pretty significantly, if not more, to the "western" music and culture.

Also, we all know what "western" implies. Thus, taking in consideration the need to include the other belonging to the mentioned Occidental sphere, the phrase "European and American" culture would suffice.

P.S. I am sorry but I could not fully understand what exactly Just plain Bill tried to explain, can you please explain to me further? MakedekaM (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Bill can explain for himself but, if you will follow his link, I think the article is reasonably plain. America and Australia did not exist in the "old world", only Asia, Africa, and Europe. The former Yugoslav republics had not yet come into existence, nor had the Warsaw Pact. I cannot say what the status of Belarus was, but I think it had not yet become part of the Kingdom of Poland, by which time most of the music-theoretical concepts under discussion had been long since established.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I get your point but one cannot deny the word "western" brings about confusion, just like the article about the western world is trying to explain with the multiple definitions. Maybe an addition is need in the style of: "Western (| in the modern cultural sense])". MakedekaM (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, I do not think the word "Western" (capitalized) brings about any particular confusion. It is perfectly common English usage, and probably less misleading than "European" would be. One of the standard English-language music-history textbooks, for example, is Donald Jay Grout's A History of Western Music, and although there are stories about bumpkins assuming its subject is Country and Western music, this has not required changing the book's title for over 50 years now. Still, I can see where some sort of caution may be desirable, for the benefit of the beginner and for those reading English as a second language. Let us see what suggestions may come from other editors reading this thread and, if none appear soon, I will have a go on my own.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Music theory as described in the English-language Wikipedia may not be traceable back to any single event or culture. I believe we can agree on that. We may also be able to agree that it began forming well before the modern era, with its geographical naming styles.

Still, saying things like "without petty attempts to steal history for yourself" raises my level of POV suspicion. I will be blunt: I have seen too much of the chauvinism which infests the lands near the Aegean Sea to be patient with any such thing.

I notice that the article does not mention Babylon. Should it? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

POV? Of course there is a POV. Every conclusion is a POV, especially historical and political facts. Having my POV raised my concern about the usage of the word "Western" and thus raised this discussion. But I am not trying to push a POV, rather trying to make you see my POV so that the article can be made more objective. Using "Western" without explanation is confusing for readers of which English is not their primary language (like me), and in that you are right, Jerome. While European might bring more confusion, "Western", as you see, raises some, too. Maybe my last proposition is acceptable? Think about it. I am sorry about my first writing in that style, but since I had no idea what is implied by "Western" in native English language, I assumed it meant "Western European and/or U.S.A.". MakedekaM (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Jerome Kohl's characterization of the word "Western" as "perfectly common English usage" is consistent with my own experience.

My main concern with defining or clarifying "Western" with the modern cultural sense here is that it is a modern meaning, which includes the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand. Western music theory has come to those areas, but it did not originate there. That, in part, is why I linked to "the European/Asian difference in the old world" earlier. I would be more comfortable linking the first occurrence of "Western" to Western culture, since that page starts with more appropriate emphasis on European culture as it came from the Tigris/Euphrates/Jordan fertile crescent. Linking to Western Europe is too restrictive, in my opinion. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A link to Western Europe would be as inappropriate as a link to Western Ontario or Western Australia, all of which are part of the West meant here, which is OED sense C.2.a, "The western part of the world. Now commonly, Europe as distinguished from Asia". I sometimes think it would be useful if we would just append the OED sense letters/numbers to each(adj.B.I.a) word(n.A.I.1.a) we(pron.A.I.1.d) use(vII.7.a.). That would save all this trouble, wouldn't it?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Reading the article of Western culture, I notice that that's exactly what I had in mind. It is a lot better to link to that than to Western world. Maybe the word "Western" will bring some additional confusion in the sense I brought up, but if someone clicks the link, will have a read of what actually is meant by the term. In search of better solution, this one is temporary acceptable, I must say. MakedekaM (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed: Allocation

• Allocation, or Allocation of Voice refers to the function and number of voices in any given example of music. A voice is any single melodic line. The term includes the number of voices: Solo (one voice), Duet (two voices), Trio (three voices), Quartet (Four voices), Quintet (five voices), sextet (six voices) and so on. The term also includes the function of voices: Solo (one voice), Group (two or more voices), Solo+Group, (two or more voices featuring a soloist), Group+Group or Dialogue (exchange between groups), and Call and Response (any of the former in alternating exchange with another of the former).

Covered by texture. Hyacinth (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Outline of basic music theory

I would like to notify you of this online learning book Outline of basic music theory and, although I realize that external links are generally discouraged, humbly ask your opinion about the possibility of adding this to the page, as I think no other such professional learning source is available online for free, what do you think? best regards from this longtime fellow wikimedian ;-) oscar (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)