Talk:Transposition (music)

Music theory High‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Transposing by an interval

What is the correct term for 'transposing by an interval'? - for example, C4-E4-G4 can be transposed up a major traid yielding E-G#-B, but it could also be transposed up a diminished fourth yielding Fb-Ab-Cb. It's not really chromatic (as the name of the notes are relevant), but it's not really scalar either, since the difference in pitch is constant and not relative to some scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raboof (talk • contribs) 16:24, 6 March 2007

Uses of Transposition

The uses of transposition should also be specified (why people use transposition?):

Transposition of instruments (mainlly wind and brass).
Transposition used by singers of different voice types (e.g. alto and tenor).

Christofer Robin 10:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Performance transposition to simpler key signature

There is a technique used whereby a piece with few accidentals and a five-flat key signature can be played as if it were a two-sharp key signature, yielding only a semitone transposition. There are also other such transpositions ... but the Key signature article doesn't mention this, nor does this Transposition (music) article. An opportunity! Find what it is called. I wanted to know but it wasn't here. 58.168.89.93 06:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Quozl[reply]

Diatonic Transposition

Diatonic Transposition leads here, but fails to explain what diatonic transposition is, nor why it is any different to, or even related to, normal transposition. 84.70.35.36 (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extending the concept of transposition in the body of the article to scalar transposition is in contradiction with the definition stated at the beginning of the article which defines transposition as moving a collection of notes by a '''constant''' interval. At least the beginning of the article should be amended to something like: moving a collection of notes by a constant interval (transposition proper or strict transposition or chromatic transposition) or by a constant number of scale degrees (scalar transposition or diatonic transposition). [[User:Basemetal|Basemetal]] ([[User talk:Basemetal|talk]]) 12:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Note there is also room for something that could be called enharmonic transposition: moving a collection of notes by a given pitch distance (in a given intonation system) without regard to the actual interval. For example the two notes C-E could be moved, "enharmonically transposed", to F-sharp - B-flat. The transposition is not by a constant interval since C is transposed by an aug 4th and E by a dim 5th and the maj 3rd C-E becomes the dim 4th F-sharp - B-flat, but pitch distances are preserved (in 12-tone equal temperament). A slight variant: moving a collection of notes by a collection of intervals not all identical to each other but all enharmonic to each other (in a system where enharmonicity is defined). The variant is that in this latest definition intervals need not have the same pitch distance but only to be enharmonic to each other. The distinction is only relevant if in a given system enharmonic intervals do not present the same pitch distance (for example just intonation, Pythagorean intonation, etc.) The previous example can serve as an illustration of this definition too. [[User:Basemetal|Basemetal]] ([[User talk:Basemetal|talk]]) 12:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Basemetal 19:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Single source

Why, what, where, and how does this article need additional citations? Hyacinth (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too technical

The language for this article is way too technical. I am a professional conductor, composer, and educator with an extensive math background, so I can read it, but the jargon is far beyond what even a typical professional musician would be able to make sense of. 76.169.152.2 (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely (incidentally I am a mathematician). I think in general Wikipedia ought to aim for usefulness and clarity over mathematical elegance and pedantry. All this content with modulo arithmetic, etc. can be explained simply and clearly (albeit certainly quite a bit more lengthily) without having to resort to mathematical jargon. At most the mathematical jargon ought to serve as a quick summary of the '''real''' explanation (e.g. "mathematicians express this by saying that ..."). [[User:Basemetal|Basemetal]] ([[User talk:Basemetal|talk]]) 12:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Basemetal 19:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]