Template talk:Musical instruments sidebar: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:30, 14 October 2019

Is it necessary to list every recorder type in the list? It seems like a person could easily just click "Recorder" and find their way to the various types of recorders from there. It doesn't list every type of saxophone and flute. So why should it list every recorder? Especially since for example sub-contrabass recorder is a stub.

Also the following list has notes in brackets with ". This seems unnecessary. Can I change these to just say "Garklein in C6." I have never seen someone write "(f")" before for music notes. Unless it's related to beginner recorder knowledge, I have never seen notes written in that way. The capitalization is not consistent either.

   Garklein in C6 (c‴)
   Sopranino in F5 (f″)
   Soprano in C5 (c″)
   Alto in F4 (f′)
   Voice flute in D4 (d′)
   Tenor in C4 (c′)
   Bass in F3 (f)
   Great bass in C3 (c)
   Contrabass in F2 (F)
   Sub-great bass in C2 (C)
   Sub-contrabass in F1 (F)

Change these to:

   Garklein in C6
   Sopranino in F5

65.255.181.151 (talk) 05:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the article Scientific pitch notation, where a number of different ways of indicating registers of pitches are discussed. The list you give indeed is not consistent in the use of capital letters, since in the second, bracketed system, F₁ is written "FF", not just "F", which corresponds to F₂.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, scientific organization is irrelevant in the field of music. I bet that none of my music professors have ever heard of this system of using primes to notate octaves. This system is not consistently in use across wikipedia for music articles. Nor would anyone who has a basic understanding of music be able to interpret C". The article you mention doesn't even fully explain the system. This is the only page I have seen using the prime system and it's completely unnecessary. If this was a scientific topic on sound then using primes is fine. This is a musicological topic on idiophones. The Hornbostel–Sachs system is this authority in this matter. This isn't a celcius to fahrenheit conversion. The amount of people using the prime system would be extremely low. This is too much information for a side-bar. Before even discussing the scientific interpretation of octaves we should discuss we every recorder is listed. As I think we could just have "recorder" we don't list every saxophonoe and clarinet 65.255.181.151 (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 [[Special:Contributions/65.255.181.151|65.255.181.151]] ([[User talk:65.255.181.151|talk]]) 05:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 :I suggest you read the article [[Scientific pitch notation]], where a number of different ways of indicating registers of pitches are discussed. The list you give indeed is not consistent in the use of capital letters, since in the second, bracketed system, F<sub>1</sub> is written "FF", not just "F", which corresponds to F<sub>2</sub>.—[[User:Jerome Kohl|Jerome Kohl]] ([[User talk:Jerome Kohl|talk]]) 06:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
-::Hello, scientific organization is irrelevant in the field of music. I bet that none of my music professors have ever heard of this system of using primes to notate octaves. This system is not consistently in use across wikipedia for music articles. Nor would anyone who has a basic understanding of music be able to interpret C". The article you mention doesn't even fully explain the system. This is the only page I have seen using the prime system and it's completely unnecessary. If this was a scientific topic on sound then using primes is fine. This is a musicological topic on idiophones. The Hornbostel–Sachs system is this authority in this matter. This isn't a celcius to fahrenheit conversion. The amount of people using the prime system would be extremely low. This is too much information for a side-bar.  [[Special:Contributions/65.255.181.151|65.255.181.151]] ([[User talk:65.255.181.151|talk]]) 17:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
+::Hello, scientific organization is irrelevant in the field of music. I bet that none of my music professors have ever heard of this system of using primes to notate octaves. This system is not consistently in use across wikipedia for music articles. Nor would anyone who has a basic understanding of music be able to interpret C". The article you mention doesn't even fully explain the system. This is the only page I have seen using the prime system and it's completely unnecessary. If this was a scientific topic on sound then using primes is fine. This is a musicological topic on idiophones. The Hornbostel–Sachs system is this authority in this matter. This isn't a celcius to fahrenheit conversion. The amount of people using the prime system would be extremely low. This is too much information for a side-bar. Before even discussing the scientific interpretation of octaves we should discuss we every recorder is listed. As I think we could just have "recorder" we don't list every saxophonoe and clarinet [[Special:Contributions/65.255.181.151|65.255.181.151]] ([[User talk:65.255.181.151|talk]]) 17:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)