User talk:Double sharp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipe-tan trifecta sign.png
"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I may not watch your talk page and I will likely unintentionally IGNORE your reply if you do not ping me in it, use Template:Talkback, or copy it to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! I also prefer to keep the conversation in one place and not split across multiple pages. Thank you.

The following users watch my talk page (feel free to add yourself to this list if you do so too).


Hi! I've got a question that I don't have an answer for off the top of my head. If you know some book to read on this, that would be especially helpful.

Do you know how the relativistic effects affect physical properties of an element? Of course, I see why gas was seen as a possibility for 114, and solid for 118. But what else is there? Talking about lead, in what ways could one non-relativistic lead differ from relativistic lead?--R8R (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The most important effect is that non-relativistic Pb would have a diamond cubic structure like the stable or metastable forms of its lighter congeners C, Si, Ge, and Sn, while relativistic Pb is fcc. The reason is that the diamond structure is stabilised by sp3 hybridisation and it is too energetically costly for Pb to promote one 6s electron to the 6p orbital. Here is a more detailed treatment. Unlike flerovium, there is no sizeable impact on the melting and boiling points of lead, because the 6p1/2 electrons are not experiencing a mild inert pair effect yet (for example, bismuth greatly prefers the +3 state over the +1 state). Double sharp (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
(Originally in the above post I didn't mention the increased results of the lanthanide contraction because this is a very weak factor from Hg onwards, but yes it is present too to a minuscule extent.) Double sharp (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, very interesting. I've come to think your suggestion with a separate subsection talking just about electron config is reasonable. Yet now I wonder how should organize info in that section given what you say (of course, I'll use (later) trial and error, but for now I'm still dazzled about this)--R8R (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Also, it's not exactly physical, but the standard electrode potentials of Pb are also prominently influenced by relativity (link), leading to the funny quip "cars start due to relativity" (lead-acid batteries). Double sharp (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
There's some difficulty in saying any more for Pb because the relativistic effects in the 6th period are not actually that high; even the lanthanide contraction is mostly already expected (effective nuclear charge increases and the outer electrons are still in the same 5d and 6s shells), so relativistic effects here are merely quantitative. For example, you would have expected a low melting point for Hg with its 5d106s2 configuration anyway; you just might not have expected it to be this low. The inert pair effect is already observable in In and Sn, and you would have expected something like this to happen because bond energy decreases with size so that it's no longer worth it to get the s-electrons involved.
In period 6 relativistic effects rise very slowly from Hf to Ir, reach a very sharp maximum at Pt and Au, and fall down quite quickly after that from Hg to Rn. This is quite unlike period 7 where you have a large staircase climb from 104 to 112 and then a slow fall down to 118 (where it is still very high).
So the only cases where you really need to bring in relativity to understand what is going on in period 6 are Pt and Au. Non-relativistic gold would really be qualitatively different from relativistic gold, not just quantitatively; you wouldn't have aurophilicity and aurides if not for this, and you wouldn't be able to achieve such high oxidation states (relativity means that Au is reluctant to be oxidised in the first place, but when it is it achieves quite high oxidation states). Indeed non-relativistic gold would be a post-transition metal instead of a transition metal, and would have a much lower melting point than it does. (Despite our article, I cannot quite believe that relativity is responsible for the golden tint of caesium, since Thayer says that relativistic effects are unimportant for Cs which behaves pretty much as expected for the fifth alkali metal. If we believe Greenwood, a similar weak golden tint is also found in calcium, and I cannot believe that relativity is the cause of that either.) Double sharp (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't think for a second this would be a major thing to talk about. Still, it was a good idea to get a better coverage in my head so that it would be easier for me to think what the final product should be like.
As for color, yes, probably. I wouldn't think that copper is brown because of relativity.yo Too bad we won't see francium for comparison.--R8R (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
"In period 6 relativistic effects rise very slowly from Hf to Ir, reach a very sharp maximum at Pt and Au, and fall down quite quickly after that from Hg to Rn." -- hmm, really? I assumed that relativity itself was increasing more or less gradually, it just didn't manifest itself as gradually as the background from non-relativistic elements changed. Am I not right here?--R8R (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The magnitude of the total effect depends a great deal on electron configuration. What is going on is that you have multiple effects that partially cancel each other out. Not only do you have a direct relativistic effect resulting in the nucleus being better-screened and Zeff dropping, but you also have an indirect destabilisation effect (predominantly on d- and f-orbitals) in which all orbitals are energetically destabilised and expand. But as a result of this destabilisation of the d- and f-orbitals the s-electrons experience a greater Zeff and experience indirect stabilisation! (Now you can see how many factors are working in opposition here!) The indirect destabilisation is dominant at the beginning of the 5d row with Hf, but as you fill in the d-subshell more and more the indirect stabilisation begins to overpower it, resulting in a huge stabilisation at the Au when we reach 5d10. When you get to Tl this effect ceases because 5d drops into the core. Please note that despite the impressive figures you will see for the relativistic effect on the 1s electrons (e.g. all the H-like atom figures in the superheavies), this is actually quite irrelevant for the chemistry. These elements don't use 1s electrons for bonding! Perhaps this book might offer some explanation.
Here's a presentation by Pyykkö on the subject, showing a graph of relativistic effects from Cs to Fm. The entrance to the "relativistic region" of the periodic table is quite abrupt and starts with Lu. The trend is quite normal, except that Pt and Au are serious outliers, having relativistic effects on the order of those of the late actinides. Double sharp (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
P.S. The first excited state of Fr is [Rn]7p, which is at the 12237 cm−1 level. In comparison, silvery Rb has first excited state [Kr]5p at 12579 cm−1, and golden Cs has [Xe]6p at 11178 cm−1. This confirms that relativistic effects lead to the (n−1)d/ns gap closing and the ns/np gap widening. I might therefore hazard a guess (to you, not to the WP readers) that bulk francium is silvery with perhaps the slightest hint of yellow. (The alkali metal article says only "The stable alkali metals are all silver-coloured metals except for caesium, which has a pale golden tint". That was added a long while ago, though the fact that it could be cited in that form with the word "stable" makes me wonder if there is a relativistic study of Fr anywhere.) Double sharp (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Would you take a look: Lead#Atomic_configuration? Is there anything I'm missing for the final story?--R8R (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I've made some changes. Double sharp (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Well done! Are we done w/ that subsection otherwise? Is there anything big we could be missing?--R8R (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Would you also look at Lead#Bulk_properties? Is there anything I'm missing?--R8R (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, for a start, I mentioned on the talk page that I thought the "ductile" assertion needed to be more qualified. Also, why is the electrical conductivity so low? Calcium is also face-centered cubic and about the same size, and yet its conductivity is quite a bit higher than that of lead. Double sharp (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I totally forgot about that note! I'll resolve that later.--R8R (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Now I'd like to ask you a question for which I don't know the answer. Not yet sure if this should be said in the article (leaning towards yes for now) but I definitely want to know myself (that's why towards yes). Why is lead not as dense as period 6 TMs? Osmium and iridium beat lead at density almost twofold while actually being lighter than lead.--R8R (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this very simple? It's because Pb has a much larger atomic radius than Os or Ir. Density is mass over volume, after all. As for why that is true, I imagine it's because 5d10 is stuck in the core at Hg, and 6p is relativistically significantly destabilised (you will notice the effect is much larger in period 6 than 5). Double sharp (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The way you put it, yes, yes, it is. This makes me think we may not have to dig into this on the article. However, I am yet left unsatisfied: there must be some systematic reason why Pb is so big compared to the TMs but I seem to have temporarily forgotten it (or may be to not know in first place). Itself it's not as interesting a question but we mention lead being described as heavy (dense actually) and also mentioning there is a metal twice as heavy.--R8R (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

the constitution of group 3 task force[edit]

I passed on your comments to Eric about this. He asked if you could read the final chapter of his VSI (very short introduction) book on the periodic table. He added that it was hard to follow what you were saying since many things seemed to be mentioned in the context of previous conversations. If you want to get through to him you'll need to start with him from the beginning. He said he was well aware of the split d block option and that it seemed like you didn't realise this.

I encourage you to follow up with him, since it would test his work on the task force and that'd be a good thing. Sandbh (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I read the chapter. Do you think the text below is better? I've tried to start from the beginning.
(1) My essential problem with the atomic number triads argument is that it does not seem to me to give the chemically ideal approach in some cases. For example, the triads seem to argue for H being placed over F as a halogen, when it absolutely does not fit the trends of that group. Hydrogen is not a strong oxidising agent and in fact is unable to form ionic hydrides with the vast majority of metals. The main shared property is that it forms diatomic molecules at STP, but the alkali metals do so too as gases. Hydrogen's chemistry as H+ is also far more important than that of H• (an unstable free radical that doesn't want to exist at STP) or that of the squishy and deformable H ion. When placed in group 1, hydrogen fits nicely as the least reactive member of the group (doesn't react with O2 or N2, or H2O, and is only coaxed to do so by the halogens). Its proclivity for covalent bonding is easily explained by the fact that H+ would be a very small charge and that its formation is unfavourable, thus forming part of a "zeroth-row anomaly". Given that a Li-like model of chemistry is a better predictor of how H actually behaves than an F-like model, I think the concept of atomic number triads needs serious questioning if it recommends the latter, and that it is not a very strong argument for Lu fitting better under Y than La does.
(2) I realise that Prof. Scerri is well aware of the split d-block option, but the Chemistry International article does not seem to be aware of it. Indeed, it seems to think that putting La under Y implies the silly sequence with La between Lu and Hf that doesn't have the atomic numbers in sequential order, based on its wording and figures.
(3) The asymmetry of the split d-block option does not necessarily imply that it is false. Indeed group 3 and the lanthanides behave very much like their s-block neighbours, in that they are electropositive metals with only one important mostly ionic oxidation state (with a few exceptions, namely Ce, Sm, Eu, and Yb – and even then +3 is the most stable state in aqueous solution), and they all reduce water. This is quite distinct from the behaviour of group 4 (and even Th), for which the +4 state is too high to be ionic.; and though their low oxidation states are quite rare, they are certainly well-known in simple compounds (e.g. ZrCl3 and HfCl3). Double sharp (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sandbh: Do you think the above text would succeed in starting from the beginning? I also re-read through my original text at Talk:Periodic table#the constitution of group 3 task force and note that it does not actually assume knowledge of previous discussions. Certainly it raises that certain issues have been discussed before, but it summarises again those arguments. Chief I suppose would be my contention that the facts of chemistry should trump an ideal Platonic symmetry, whether it be putting Lu under Y or putting Cu, Ag, and Au in a supposed "group IB". Actually I think I should add:
(4) It is not clear how much the concept of a block actually means for the chemistry of an element. Despite being in the s-block, H and He are well distinct from any other s-block members, and Be and Mg are more similar to Al in the p-block and Zn in the d-block respectively, while Zn is quite distinct in the d-block (witness all the arguments against Zn as a transition metal), and Al is certainly quite different from Cl or Ar in the p-block. The first row of f-block elements behaves like the s-block elements (they are electropositive metals with only one main oxidation state), while the opening of the second row of the f-block acts as though it was a fourth row of the d-block. A desire to keep the d-block intact is all fine and well from the perspective of Platonic symmetry, but there is already an established precedent in breaking the s-block to prioritise chemistry over Platonic symmetry. The upshot is: are we drawing a table to make it look pretty and subdivide it into pastel-coloured rectangles, or are we drawing one to illustrate chemical similarities in the best way possible? Double sharp (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I've been busy with the HM FAC and still am. Ill see if I can look at this later and let you know if I can answer quickly or not. Sandbh (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
My work on the HM FAC is nearly done (I hope) and I'll be able to look at this after that. There are no quick responses I can give to you. I need to reread the sources, carefully reread your line of argument, and then give you a considered answer. Sandbh (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Have started looking at your text. On a first reading it flows quite well. Will now look more closely. Sandbh (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
These are fine words. The only bit I couldn't follow is where you say, "…and though their low oxidation states are quite rare, they are certainly well-known in simple compounds (e.g. ZrCl3 and HfCl3)." What was the point you were trying to make there? Sandbh (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make is that the group 3 metals do not show lower oxidation states than the group state in simple compounds (at least, that I know of), whereas the group 4 metals do. This is another way in which group 3 behaviour is distinct from even the immediate d-block neighbours. Do you have a suggestion for how to make this point clearer? Double sharp (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to leave that bit out since it does't add much to your argument, and Wiberg gives the following LnX2 halides: CeI2, PrI2, NdCl2, NdBr2, NdI2, SmF2, SmCl2, SmBr2, SmI2, EuF2, EuCl2, EuBr2, EuI2, GdI2, DyCl2, DyBr2, DyI2, TmCl2, TmBr2, TmI2, YbF2, YbCl2, YbBr2, YbI2; not to mention NdO, SmO, EuO and YbO. Sandbh (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I've struck out that portion. By the way, note that some of these (e.g. CeI2, PrI2, GdI2) are actually Ln(III) electride compounds according to Greenwood and Earnshaw (p. 1240). In any case I do not think it weakens the argument appreciably because it concerns the lanthanides Ce–Yb, and certainly not La and Lu, the only two possible contenders for the coveted position under Y in group 3; and anyway Eu2+ and Yb2+ are quite well-known to be similar to Ca2+, Sr2+, Ba2+, and Ra2+, except for the lanthanides' possibility of oxidation. But I think it would sidetrack the point too much, and have deleted it. Double sharp (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sandbh: Do you think the above text (including or not including (4)?) would now be suitable for sending to Prof. Scerri? (Also, I think it might be a bit better if you sent it, so that you could give context better by saying something like "after seeing your comments, I passed them back to DS, who has rewritten their arguments to start from ground zero", rather than coming straight from me without much context?) Double sharp (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's suitable, including (with one caveat) paragraph 4. In paragraph 1 you basically argue that H fits better in group 1 than it does in group 7, which is fine, and consistent with research findings I've posted in our project page on this point from time to time. But in paragraph 4 you say that, despite being in the s-block, H is well distinct from any other s-block members. I think you could try removing the reference to H from paragraph 4 without weakening your argument.
No, you should email Eric. You write well and your ideas will stand up well enough without me having to present them. And I'm sure he'd be interested in what you have to say. Just remember, as a matter of professional courtesy, to give him some context on your background. Sandbh (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm honoured!
How about this for (4):
"It is not clear how much the concept of a block actually means for the chemistry of an element. Helium is in the s-block, and yet its closest chemical cousins are the noble gases in the p-block. Be and Mg are in the s-block, but are more similar to Al in the p-block and Zn in the d-block respectively than they are to the heavier members of group 2. And it is well-known that Zn, Cd, and Hg, despite being in the d-block, do not show many of the characteristic properties of transition metals. Finally all these chemical similarities almost break down completely in the p-block: for example, B is not very similar to F at all. Since there is already a precedent for breaking the s-block to treat helium better chemically, I do not think there is any real problem with breaking the d-block if that results in treating La better. It may upset Platonic symmetry, but we are not drawing a table to reflect Platonic symmetry. We are drawing a table to reflect chemical properties."
I'll email him about this once you give your comments on this new (4). And actually, upon rereading this, I don't seem to have made my actual point clear about Sc/Y/La vs Sc/Y/Lu, so I should probably add something to the end of (3) like:
"It is well-known (cites Jensen's paper) that Sc/Y/Lu gives trends that are similar to those in the early transition metal groups, while Sc/Y/La gives trends that are similar to those in the s-block groups. Since the group 3 elements behave chemically more like their neighbours in the s-block than their neighbours in the d-block (indeed, arguments have sometimes been raised to exclude them from the transition metals proper), this would suggest that La is a more appropriate candidate for the third member of group 3." Double sharp (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
(4) is fine. Your addition to the end of (3) duplicates, in part, what (3) already says. I'd like to see your complete new version of (3). Sandbh (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Here it is: "The asymmetry of the split d-block option (Sc/Y/La) does not necessarily mean that it is false. It is well-known (cites Jensen's paper) that Sc/Y/Lu gives trends that are similar to those in the early transition metal groups, while Sc/Y/La gives trends that are similar to those in the s-block groups. To decide which trend is more relevant, we should look at the chemistry of group 3 and the lanthanides. We then find that they are all electropositive metals that reduce water and have only one important, mostly ionic oxidation state (and even for the few exceptions, Ce, Sm, Eu, and Yb, the +3 state is still by far the most important one in aqueous solution). This behaviour is much more like that of their s-block neighbours in groups 1 and 2, and is quite different from that of group 4 (and Th), for which the +4 state is too high to be ionic. This would suggest that La is a more appropriate candidate for the third member of group 3, giving an s-block-like trend that fits their chemistry." Double sharp (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Requiem (Mozart), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ludwig Berger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


Have you seen a declaration by either team that they won't name the newly created element 106 in the seventies? I think I've seen both one from Ghiorso and one from Ogannessian, but now I can't find either.--R8R (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Problem solved. By the way, maybe you'll be interested in this story from the 1970s telling about the discovery of a new element, element 106: -- just run Google Translate.--R8R (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Extremely interesting! Sorry for not getting back to you – I had hoped to when I found a source, but you seem to have beaten me to it. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Did you get a notification I had mentioned you in my sandbox?[edit]

I transferred some stuff from my talk page to my sandbox that had other people's signatures attached. I got rid of people's signatures since I wondered if that might not cause them to be notified that I had "mentioned" them in my sandbox. Did you get one such notification? I might have overlooked one of yours. Basemetal 15:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No, but I saw your recent contributions and was interested by one of the old conversations found there (the one about double accidentals in Bach). Double sharp (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Cancelling a sharp with a flat sign and vice versa?[edit]

Have you encountered by any chance in any of the autographs of the 48 any place where a flat belonging to a key signature is cancelled not with a natural but with a sharp sign or conversely a place where a sharp belonging to a key signature is cancelled not with a natural but with a flat sign? Basemetal 15:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Not in the 48 that I know of, but this sort of cancellation (a flat cancelling an earlier sharp to a natural) appears in BWV 1021 from 1732 (albeit in figured bass). Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah but in figured basses that used to be common, e.g. the raised 3rd was always notated with a sharp sign, no matter what the signature of the key was, until some pedants in Germany decided that they would use naturals instead if the note was flat in the signature. And that then spread from Germany to other fools. Of course the idea is the same, but I've been chasing for years for examples of another (and in my opinion more logical) convention for notating accidentals in scores that might have existed in the 17th and 18th c. The results have been mixed so far. Yet that convention was truly more logical and I can defend that statement. Basemetal 15:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
As a pianist and singer, instead of as a theorist, I would disagree on that convention being more logical. I would prefer D-sharp to always look like a D affected by a sharp (either next to it or in the key signature), instead of its appearance changing depending on whether we are in E major (in which case we see a natural), C major (in which case we see a sharp), or A-flat major (in which case we see a double-sharp). I'm not saying the current convention is more logical, but I do think it is just as logical, though it prioritises absolute pitch over relative functions. Double sharp (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, let's not argue. To some extent it depends on what one is already used to and since you're such a voracious score reader you may feel that the convention you're so used to is more natural. I'll just note a triviality namely that to interpret a note without an accidental you obviously already need to take the signature into account, since that is what a signature is for to begin with, so I don't think it would be such a big jump to apply the same sort of mental mechanism to notes with accidentals. Also you may argue that in that other convention there is no way to use cautionary accidentals, but in fact you can systematically use the natural sign as a cautionary accidental if you need one (since in that other convention the natural sign means the note is to be played or sung with exactly the same accidental it has at the signature) and it would work about the same once you get used to it. Basemetal 16:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I'd like it more as a proposal if the absolute accidentals in the key signature didn't look exactly the same as the relative accidentals in the musical text. Unimaginatively imagining up- and down-arrows for absolute accidentals does make me more sympathetic to the idea. Double sharp (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
P.S. The other problem I have with your proposed convention is that it seems to imply that accidentals in the key signature must be interpreted absolutely while those in the actual musical text must be interpreted relatively, despite them looking exactly the same. I think this is too confusing. I appreciate that the point I raised above is weaker, since different clefs already mean that notes do not always look the same at first glance (for example, E4 is on the bottom line on the treble staff but on the fourth line on the alto staff). The one case I think your proposal would be a great bonus is in sight-transposition. Double sharp (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the "algorithm" for sight transposition with signature and clef (change clef, change signature, done) would be a piece of cake (well, ok) whereas it gives me a headache just to think of the "algorithm" one has to use now. The mere difference in the simplicity of the "algorithms" I think already says a lot. Basemetal 16:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • So you've practiced clefs and transposition with (change of) signature and clef (I mean imagining a new clef and signature). That tells me you're probably not from North America because Jerome Kohl told me it was not very common for that to be seriously studied there. (Although he told me he personally did by himself). I know a guy who went to Juilliard and who told me they did practice it some there, but never actually practiced all seven clefs very seriously! How useful! I'm curious, did you guys use "3rd line F clef" or "5th line C clef"? Basemetal 16:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I used 3rd line F clef. Mind you, there are no common instruments in G, so that particular one has gotten quite rusty since the "serious" practice. Double sharp (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I have never personally even seen a solfeggio using 5th line C clef even though I'd much prefer that. When the exercise is entirely in 3rd line F clef throughout its not so bad but in exercises full of clef changes I had a tendency to confuse 3rd line F clef and 4th line F clef. How much trouble that gives also depends on how difficult the music is and how good you are in the first place of course, but overall 5th line C clef is less "confusable" (to coin a word), in my opinion at least. Basemetal 13:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, I do find it easier to distinguish between different positionings of the C-clef than of any other clef, though this is perhaps only because it is the only one of the three main clefs that is still moveable. A lot of it also depends on just how much stuff you get to read in each clef. I am certainly very fluent in the four modern clefs (treble, alto, tenor, and bass), as well as the old soprano clef, since that is still used in many old scores. (I sometimes do in fact anachronistically use the C-clefs for vocal music or counterpoint exercises just to practice this, for example using the soprano clef as a standard "one-size-fits-all" clef the way normal people would use the treble clef.) But my tastes in music tend not to extend very much before J. S. Bach, and so I have never gotten much practice with the mezzo-soprano and baritone clefs outside those exercises. I can still read the mezzo-soprano clef reasonably well because of modern horns in F, but since there are no common modern instruments in G, the baritone clef is very rusty for me today. (And given how the B-flat clarinet seems to be increasingly the default instrument in modern music, I am pretty confident that the soprano clef would also be rusty for me if not for its prominent past use in vocal music.) Double sharp (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
No alto flute in the scores you read? Basemetal 14:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
It's not so common an instrument. Also, if it is used, we are probably looking at a score for a large orchestra, and there may be cue lines for other instruments in case it is not available (e.g. in Holst's Planets). It doesn't provide anywhere near enough practice for me. Double sharp (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed the clefs used in harmony exercises are not equidistant. The clefs used for the tenor and the alto are closer to each other than those used for the bass and the tenor and those used for the alto and the soprano. And that goes beyond harmony exercises: the old tenor viola (or tenor violin, tuned like a violin but one octave down) used to be written in tenor clef, the (alto) viola used to be written in alto clef (and still is): those two clefs are a 3rd apart, while the alto clef and the treble clef used for the violin are a 7th a part even though the distance between the instruments is about the same. In some places (France?) the usual clef for the violin even used to be the 1st line G clef, a 9th higher than the alto clef. Are these just some of those irrational kinks you often find in music notation or is there some real justification here for a change? Basemetal 10:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
These "standard" distances were already noticed in the 1760s; see chiavette. Although I don't remember seeing anything since the 1760s using anything other than chiavi naturali (soprano-alto-tenor-bass) for four-part polyphony exercises, so this is probably another case of theorists' anachronism (for a particularly egregious example, see Gustav Schilling's Musikalische Dynamik, published in 1843, yet still listing the minuet, the forlane, and the folie d'espagne among modern dance forms). Double sharp (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
What was done when the work was say for 6 distinct voices (soprano, mezzo, contralto, tenor, baritone, bass)? Was a 6 clefs system used? Otherwise (i.e. if not) where would the names "mezzo clef" and "baritone clef" (never used in French) come from? Could they be entirely arbitrary and conventional, having never really been used for the mezzo and baritone voice? Incidentally when did those middle voices begin to be distinguished from the other four and given their own names? 15th century? 16th century? 17th century? 18th century? Basemetal 13:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't actually know about the usage before the common practice period, which is not conducive to answering this question because you will not find the mezzo-soprano and baritone clefs before then. Then again, given the routineness of clef transposition (chiavette) so that you could mentally reimagine a work for a lower or higher vocal ensemble, I would not be surprised at all if these names are indeed just arbitrary. In the Classical era (my favourite time period for anachronism), and the Baroque era, I get the impression that mezzos and baritones are not really distinguished from sopranos and basses respectively. For example Mozart writes Papageno in the bass clef (except when he blows his pipes in treble clef), even though he very rarely goes below the middle line (and, actually, his part fits the tenor clef better). Something that also should be noted is that the modern treble clef actually fits the soprano voice better than the soprano clef does. With a centre on G4, and one ledger line taking you to G5 at the top and G3 at the bottom, it actually fits altos and countertenors surprisingly well. You would've thought that someone would have realised this, especially since Mozart seems to take every opportunity to fly high above the soprano staff, culminating in five-ledger-line hell in KV 316. So the distinction of the mezzo and baritone voices must have been later than all the possibilities you suggest, certainly by the 19th century (Berlioz explicitly asks for mezzos and baritones in Les nuits d'été of 1843). Even then it is blurry: Musorgsky calls Marfa in Khovanshchina a contralto, but her tessitura seems to climb from the true contralto it is in the first acts to a strong mezzo-soprano (usually with down-stemmed notes in the treble staff) in the final immolation scene, complete with a sweet and soft G5 (with a fermata!). Double sharp (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Look what I've found! Apparently an American organist trying to convince other Americans to use clef transposition. Alleluia! It would make Jerome Kohl very happy (not to mention this, presumably Czech, family managing to keep a hacek (caron) in America). I've just browsed through it but one thing I already disagree with is his advice to learn fixed do. For the following reasons: First of all fixed do is a form of child abuse. (I was raised on fixed do!) Second, fixed do doesn't force you to take into account the signature and accidentals when naming the note since you sing D double sharp, D sharp, D natural, D flat and D double flat on the same syllable "re". If pitch is all that matters then you might as well use movable do or even vocalize on la, la, la. But finally, and probably the most important, you don't even need to sing and get hoarse to learn sight transposition, you can do it on an instrument and it's as good or even better. Basemetal 10:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Yay!
    • I don't particularly mind singing for this. (Then again, I would be biased, wouldn't I?) But yes, I think fixed-do is a bad idea. Actually, I think moveable-do would be better for sight transposition. It's how I think. Consider the example from Fingal's Cave (p. 21 of the pdf). What I do is indeed to visualise the soprano clef and two-sharp key signature, but instead of mentally adjusting each accidental one-by-one, I also use the fact that the music is tonal. So, no matter what key it is in, I should sing the opening as so-mi-so-do-re-mi-mi-la-mi-mi-fa. Now if I start on F (a minor third lower) instead of A, I've accomplished the transposition without thinking. Isn't that better? Sometimes (in cases like the hymn on p. 30) I might completely forget about doing the clef transposition and just think of scale degrees and chord functions, thus getting everything into the higher key without really thinking. (This is how I tend to handle old natural horn parts, BTW: when you see C and E together, you know that it must be the tonic and mediant of the key, whatever it actually is.)
    • Regarding moveable-do, since this is also apparently a controversy (see this), I strongly prefer that the tonic always be "do" no matter what the mode is. Thus, in C minor, the tonic is still "do", not "la". I know that that site argues that having the tonic be "la" is better to preserve the relationships between syllables like ti→do and fa→mi, but I feel that having the tonic be "la" does us a disservice, because it treats the subtonic (B) as more fundamental than the leading tone (B). That's not how it works in common-practice tonality, which simply does not work without leading tones in dominant chords. I would actually argue that the basic form of the minor scale is not the natural minor but the harmonic minor. The melodic minor then simply is a case of chromatic alteration of scale degree 6 and scale degree 7 to avoid the augmented second when its high expressivity is not desired; since this happens often, it signifies that chromaticism and the minor mode are closely related. (I suppose this means I find that a minor key is more related to its parallel major than its relative major. This may not be universal. What do you think?) Double sharp (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    • P.S. When I do want to sing notes without implying any harmonic functions as moveable-do solfège does, I tend to sing German note names instead of fixed-do. They fit in one syllable (at least, they should; why would someone write atonal music with double-sharps and double-flats?). Double sharp (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Do you know what they call a Czech-American who's kept a caron in his surname? A "Hat Czech"! double sharpa! double sharpa! double sharpa! (That's LOL in archaic Spanish spelling Face-smile.svg). Hysterically funny, isn't it? I've gotta tell Jerome Kohl this one! Oh, how I hate people who laugh at their own jokes! But to get back to do (movable or otherwise) I'm surprised that as a singer you don't mind wasting your voice on exercises that tend to come from instrumental music. In fact modern solfeggios (as opposed to the Italian solfeggios of the 18th c. that were specifically exercises for singers) such as those used in French and Belgian conservatories were considered so ill suited for singers that singers were exempted from the regular "solfège" classes and had their own special "solfège pour chanteurs". Even though I am not familiar at all with movable do I wanted to know how it worked (I even imported chunks from the Solfège article to my sandbox to summarize it to myself) I did become aware of the religious divide between the "do as a tonic always" school and "do as a tonic for major, la as a tonic for minor, mi as a tonic for phrygian, etc." school. Jerome Kohl is also from your school of thought btw, but ultimately, as my grandmother used to say "what's easy is what you're used to". Both systems at least are logically consistent (which can't be said of fixed do, even on its own proclaimed terms). I've met a few movable do practitioners from Europe but I've never thought of asking them about that "do always" and "do for major, la for minor, etc." divide because I was not aware of it at the time. In many places in central Europe they call it the "Kodály method" even though Kodály never invented it. Do you know by any chance (if you know anything about the "Kodály method") if it is "do always" or "do not always"? I've once met a Croatian girl who did exactly what you do i.e. "movable do" when it's not impractical (with the caveat that I never asked about the "do always" vs the "do not always" thing since as I said I had no idea about it at the time) and "German names" (modulo enharmony to avoid two syllable names) when it was. There's a funny story she told me that has nothing to do with movable do but something with the German note names: she was an undergraduate majoring in physics at MIT in Cambridge, Mass. and she was in choir. At one rehearsal she was standing next to a little Chinese girl (little size-wise not age-wise, obviously, since she was also a student at MIT) and she heard her sing a B-flat when she should have sung a B-natural. They were singing the same part, soprano. So she (the Croatian girl) tells her "here you're supposed to sing an H not a B". The little girl says nothing but looks at my friend in a funny way. Next time around the little girl sings B-flat again. So again my friend says "you're supposed to sing an H not a B". So the girl looks at my friend with a piercing glance and says very slowly: "There is no such thing as an H". That really cracked my Croatian friend up because, one, that other girl had said nothing the first time and, two, she had kept looking at my Croatian friend the whole time as if she was dealing with a demented woman and my friend finally understood why that was only the second time around. Basemetal 14:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
        • It's probably because I spend much more time as a pianist and composer than as a singer, despite having gotten some training as all of these; if it were the other way round, I would surely think like you'd expect me to. Also I don't really mind if it's not particularly well-suited; I rather enjoy seeing how perversely unidiomatic you can go before it actually becomes impossible (repeated octave leaps, anyone?). (Evidently I am rather an outlier here.)
        • I dunno about "what's easy is what you're used to" here. After all, I was taught with "do for major, la for minor, etc.", but never liked it or found it intuitive and kept accidentally singing "so" for the dominant of a minor scale instead of "mi", etc. Dunno about Kodály; our article says it uses scale degrees for tonal function, but what that implies depends on what you think "tonal function" entails.
        • And yes, your story amuses me very much, mostly because I've done exactly the same thing before and gotten reactions ranging from confusion to "there-is-no-such-thing-as-an-H". (I even do it in writing, because "gis" is easier to write in one motion than "g".) And I have also ended up calling B "B" and getting "corrected". The perks of musical code-switching! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
        • P.S. Do you have a link to where Jerome Kohl says this? Double sharp (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
          • (I assume you mean that he's for "do only as a tonic" not about the "hat Czech" cause he didn't, it's my joke...) Yes I do because it was a conversation I had with him here, but I'll have to look for it which might take a little because I've conducted conversations with Jerome not only on his talk page but on other people's talk pages (such as Hyacinth and Antandrus). Basemetal 15:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Here it is Talk:Properties of musical modes#Regarding the transfert. Whew. I got lucky. I was kind of (as it turns out wrongly) recalling Jerome made that statement on some user talk page where I'd asked him some question. But it turns out that was off by a mile. It was on an article's talk page. So it's entirely, wholly, completely and totally by accident (I'm one lucky dog, am I not!) I stumbled on this talk page from an article since cancelled and made a redirect where Jerome says what I said he said. Whew. Now you can be friends. Basemetal 16:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Was that what you wanted? (The use of "transfert" was a joke) Basemetal 05:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
            • Yup! I see we agree that "do" should always mean scale degree 1. BTW, does anyone else think (like I said above) that the harmonic minor is the basic form of the minor scale as it is used in common-practice tonality? Double sharp (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
            • BTW, I find it hilarious that this site ("Write Like Mozart") recommends that you avoid augmented seconds to achieve that goal. This is rather obviously not true... Double sharp (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
              • BTW, does anyone else think (like I said above) that the harmonic minor is the basic form of the minor scale as it is used in common-practice tonality? I for one and 80 million French speakers. I wasn't taught anything other than that. Take a look if you've got a chance (maybe it's already at Archive) at the old theory by Chailley & Challan or at the (relatively) new book by Claude Abromont (around 2000). How many V-i cadences you've seen in common-practice minor where vii wasn't raised to vii? French terminology is as follows: the harmonic minor is the basic form, the melodic minor is an "inflexion" of the harmonic minor and it has two forms, the ascending one (raising vi to vi) and the descending one (lowering vii to vii). In the context of common practice the natural minor is never called natural minor but only descending form of the melodic minor. (Another quaint French bit of terminology for you: the harmonic minor is sometimes called "mineur à 3 demi-tons" and the melodic minors, both ascending and descending, "mineurs à 2 demi-tons".) The natural mineur scale as such is considered to be a modal notion somewhat outside common practice, for which the terms "gamme mineure naturelle" or sometimes (maybe an older terminology) "gamme mineure (de type) antique" are used. I don't know where you were brought up that this would be such a surprise for you Face-smile.svg. Basemetal 09:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
                • In British (and as far as I know, American) practice it's more usual to take the natural minor as the "ideal" and consider the harmonic minor a patch to fix its lack of a leading tone. (The melodic minor is then a patch on top of a patch to fix the harmonic minor's augmented seconds.) Thus we arrive at a conception of a "fuzzy" A minor scale with variable sixth and seventh degrees, that are ostensibly F and G, but in practice often become F and G. I never did think it was logical for tonal music; it might parallel historical development from the modes, but seeing scale degree 7 leading to scale degree 8 is indeed very rare (I can't think of an example, but there certainly must be a few outliers around). It should lead down away from the tonic to scale degree 6 instead (and I'd argue that VII chords in minor keys are usually just V/III). I suppose, following such thinking, you could also see scale degree 2 as a variable scale degree in minor keys. In A minor it would usually be B, but to avoid the diminished triad (ii°) it may become B. Maybe a truer criterion is whether the chords can fulfill their function with or without the alteration. iv is somewhat weakened as IV because that is higher up the circle of fifths, whereas the subdominant should be relaxed and lowered, but it can work (see the opening of Mozart KV 488/ii). ii° may be unstable as a diminished triad, but II is so far away from the tonic (not to mention the tritone leap needed to get to V) it is unstable in itself as well and adds a great deal of pathos. It is only V that cannot retain a similar function when altered to v.
                • Although one thing that the natural-minor-first approach does address is this question: if the leading-tone is diatonic, why isn't it in the key signature? Double sharp (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue with moveable-do[edit]

I suppose it would be an interesting opportunity to study how people react to modulations. Let's use KV 488/ii yet again!

\relative c'' {
  \key fis \minor
  \tempo "Adagio"
  \time 6/8
  cis8. d16 cis8 cis (fis a) | a (b,) gis'-. r b,4~ | b16 (a) fis'4~ fis8 gis, (d') | fis,4 (eis32 fis gis fis eis8) r r | d'8. e16 d8 \grace {d32 ([e32])} fis8. e16 d8 | bis4. (cis8) r r | cis16 (b) ais (b) ais (b) a'! (gis) fis (eis) d (cis) | b4 (ais8) a8 r r | g8. a16 g8 g4 g8 | g-. b-. d-. g-. b-. d-. | fis,,8. gis!16 fis8 a4 (gis8) | fis4 r8 r4 r8

(Guess how many times I wrote "h" for the Bs and "his" for the B, before backspacing them!) The first line is straightforward. But do I move b.5–6 into A major (changing the tonic), or remain in F minor for what is clearly just a tonicisation (IV/III-V/III-III)? Similarly for the VI = V/II in b.8; after all, we stay on that II for quite a while.

Then later we get:

\relative c'' {
  \key fis \minor
  \tempo "Adagio"
  \time 6/8
  \set Score.currentBarNumber = #20
  r8 r16. cis32 d ([cis bis cis]) a'8. gis16 fis8 | eis-. e-. dis-. d-. cis-. cis-. | cis [r16. cis32] d ([cis bis cis]) a'8. gis16 fis8 | fis16 (eis) eis-. e-. dis-. d-. d (cis) cis-. cis-. cis-. cis-. | cis8 [r16. cis32] d ([cis bis cis]) a'8. gis16 fis8 | fis16 (e!) e8 e e (fis d) | cis r e e8. d16 cis8 | b (d fis) a r cis, | e8. (cis16) b8 r16 e, gis b e b | d8 c r r16 e, a c e c | ais8 b r r e, e'' | e4 (dis8) r r16 a, (c a) | e'4 r8 r r16 a (c a) | e'4 r8 r r16 a,, (c a) | e'8-. (e-. e-.) dis16 (e fis! e d b) | a4 r8 r4 r8

When would you make the modulation from F minor to A major? (I'd sing "do" for the last note of b.24 and "la" for the last note of b.25, but this may not be where people would universally do it; after all, when reading through it first, you may think it is first a tonicisation and not change "do" yet, like in b.5.) And if you use "la" for the tonic in minor, when would you change from A major to A minor? (In fact this is the sort of passage that I tend to take out when arguing against "la" for the tonic in minor, since here the shift of mode simply heightens the sense of tension without actually changing the meaning of any note.) Double sharp (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

What's going on at IMSLP/Petrucci Music Library?[edit]

Several of my links to documents at IMSLP do not work any more. On top of that they are asking me for money. Is anything going on there? Are we gonna lose free access? Basemetal 15:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

They still work for me even when logged out of IMSLP. This is quite an old thing from last year. You do not need to pay if you don't mind waiting the full 15 seconds for each download. And in the case of the 48, you can quite hilariously exhaust these 15 seconds just by opening as many of the files as you can in separate tabs, and then going through them all again. Double sharp (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Was Don ever on the faculty at his school?[edit]

Don's page seems to say he's on the faculty. But if you look at the personnel page of that school his name does no longer show up? (Did it ever?) Do you have an explanation? I hope we're not gonna lose that site if Don runs away to Bolivia or Colombia or something. All that hard work for nothing! (Especially you!) Basemetal 15:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I don't remember having checked that beforehand, but even if he does leave for elsewhere we at least have copies archived by the Wayback Machine. Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah but you see the problem: the archived copy is from March 2016 whereas there is already a revision from August 2016. Maybe the best idea would be that you make a personal copy and store it some place safe (maybe on WP in your user space). Another advantage of that idea: you could include actual pictures illustrating the various cases: that would be a lot more useful than people having to themselves go and look those examples up (whereas Don's site is exclusively text based and only gives you a pointer to the examples). Maybe there could even be a WP page with essentially the material that is at Don's site. Btw, not only is Don a bit slow in including the examples sent to him but there is a document (mentioned I think at his page) that also contains examples of the same order and that is years old and that was never integrated and is still not included in the main list. Basemetal 16:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, not a bad idea. But would he be okay with that sort of duplication? I don't think he'd mind if I limited its scope somehow, like perhaps "things you never expected to see from Mozart" (such as polytonality, whole-tone scales, polymeters with non-coinciding barlines, tone rows, six-flat key signatures). But copying the whole of his list and adding further examples smacks of competition and plagiarism to my perhaps over-sensitive conscience. Double sharp (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, then, make a copy and only make it public if Don's site happens to disappear one day. Basemetal 16:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC) PS: And of course, if that were to happen, you would completely credit the old site and acknowledge it was the first to come up with the idea, etc.


"Revert Vandalism"? Why did you revert that editor's work?[1] Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 16:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Because it duplicated the history section and deleted the occurrence one. Double sharp (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Pv zk pv pv zk pv zk kz zk pv pv pv zk pv zk zk pzk pzk pvzkpkzvpvzk kkkkkk bsch listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pv zk pv pv zk pv zk kz zk pv pv pv zk pv zk zk pzk pzk pvzkpkzvpvzk kkkkkk bsch. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 2601:240:C400:D60:2D79:52FD:9844:581F (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It appears that my unintentional sins of immaturity have risen once more before me. Anyway, I !voted in favour of deletion. Double sharp (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
LOL! Immaturity is no sin! A facetious side to a serious WP contributor. Were there ever Easter Eggs at Google Translate? I don't remember ever encountering one. Basemetal 15:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there was. This one was rather well-covered in 2010. If you typed the aforementioned text into Google Translate and set it to translate German to German, it would produce beatboxing. It doesn't work anymore.
Man! How was that ever discovered? What was the probability someone would both try that very string and then try to translate it German to German (which you can only do, at least these days, by tweaking the link manually as the interface won't let you set the same language on both sides)? Clearly American teenagers have got too much time on their hand. Either that or there was a leak from Google somewhere, albeit possibly with only partial information to encourage said teenagers to have a go and try out stuff without giving them the whole thing just to increase traffic which is ultimately the goal of all those gimmicks ("Don't be evil"). Basemetal 15:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a more complete list here. The original string was indeed "pv zk pv pv zk pv zk kz zk pv pv pv zk pv zk zk pzk pzk pvzkpkzvpvzk kkkkkk bsch", but other possibilities also work. Perhaps that one was leaked and people experimented around?! Double sharp (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding my more improbable sides, I seem to be the only intersection of Category:WikiProject Elements members (chemistry) and Category:Wikipedians who like Madoka Magica (I really don't know what to say about that, other than that someone recommended the show to me IRL, I humoured him, and amazingly actually ended up enjoying it). Double sharp (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
And a 少女アニメ on top of that! Well, I am a fan of the Russian cartoon Маша и Медведь (ah the quiet life in the middle of Siberia next to a track of the Transiberian) but I do enjoy (in moderation) manga and anime and also live action movies spun-off from mangas as they like to do in Japan from time to time. Even from 少女漫画. Do you know the movie ラブコン? I've always found the karaoke scene hilarious. Basemetal 15:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I've heard of it, but haven't yet watched it. I haven't been into Japanese media for very long – mostly only since last year (and like I said, I place the blame squarely on some of my friends...). That's been long enough at least to notice the trend of spinning off live-action movies from mangas – at least, I rather liked the few I did watch so far (and yes, not all of them were from 少女漫画 or アニメ). Also, thanks for allowing me the precedent of using the original writing system – I can't type "anime" without "amine" coming out, which I suppose somewhat redeems this lack of seriousness.
In retrospect, I suppose part of my actual enjoyment of this particular 少女アニメ could be traced back to its many references to Goethe's Faust (which I would know, being such a prominent thing in the history of music) and its Monty-Pythonesque levels of surreal animation. Also, since this was a major dividing point in the fandom, I should probably add to be specific that I thought the third movie was brilliant – although I do wonder how on Earth one could sensibly continue at that level of inspiration after it, and would rather it stopped there. Double sharp (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
P.S. This section title makes the history look absolutely ridiculous and I love it. Double sharp (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I have been relatively well behaved on WP but I remember in my younger years adding a sarcastic comment to an editor's user page, which he reverted angrily as vandalism. (I had thought it was humor!). Then, shortly after that, he blanked his own user page. I thought I had been the cause of his decision to ditch his own user page so I felt guilty and apologized (a year later!) but he told me that I shouldn't worry about it as it wasn't my fault. Basemetal 17:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
PS: There are 44 people who watch your talk page but only 4 dare acknowledge it. Clearly that must be because of "Pv zk pv pv zk pv zk kz zk pv pv pv zk pv zk zk pzk pzk pvzkpkzvpvzk kkkkkk bsch". Face-smile.svg Basemetal 18:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

A fuzzy question for a lazy Sunday afternoon[edit]

Here, my friend, is a question one can only ask on a Sunday afternoon, and since it is Sunday I hope you will forgive me. So here goes: In the classical period modulations from a major key to the major key a 5th up and modulations from a minor key to its relative major appear in similar contexts. This may come from the asymmetry between major and minor in that period (I mean major being the senior partner) and from the way it was felt that the feeling of "brightening" you get when you move from a major key to the major key a 5th up and the feeling of "brightening" you get when you move from a minor key to its relative major were felt to be related. So my question: Must this way those two kinds of feeling of "brightening" were considered not equivalent but of the same order be considered entirely a cultural artifact specific to the music of that period (and those styles of music influenced by it) or is there some objective explanation for it? Basemetal 13:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This has a lot to do with how the Classical style views the minor mode as essentially unstable, which is why so many pieces in the Classical era that start in a minor key end in the parallel major (most famously, Mozart's KV 516). When this does not happen, there must be a textural or formal reason why, with an added simplicity of phrasing or texture: for example, KV 491 ends in the minor, but has a simple variations-finale. Similarly, KV 550 is very square in its phrasing in the finale. Haydn's F-sharp minor trio likewise ends in the minor, but has a minuet for a finale. Haydn's quartet Op. 50 No. 4 looks like an exception, but to some extent this extraordinary work is a deliberate anachronism since the finale is a fugue (and also could be said to fit: after all, isn't a closing fugue an illustration of compositional virtuosity?)
Like the subdominant, the minor mode tends to weaken the tonic, and plays a similar role. (For example, if one moves from I to v instead of V, the dominant is indeed established as a tonality, but the relation to the tonic is weakened and more strained: this is very much a dramatic thing.) Hence, in this system, moving to the relative major key increases the tension just as going to the dominant does in a major key. This is also helped by the increasing animation of phrasing and texture that always occurs in a Classical sonata, whether or not it is in the major or minor. For an easily spotted example, see KV 516, where the second subject takes a more expressive arcing form after the modulation from G minor to B-flat major is finally won. For a more subtle example, see KV 388, where the unease of the opening in C minor carries forth into the second group in E-flat major, with the increasingly irregular phrasing, as well as the bald juxtapositions of piano and forte outbursts on augmented sixth harmonies.
As for how this changed over time, I cannot do better than quote Charles Rosen's The Classical Style (p. 26): "In the early part of the [eighteenth] century, the secondary key to C minor, for example, could be either the dominant minor (G minor), or the relative major (E flat major). But the dominant minor triad can never have the force of the major chord, and this weak relation almost totally disappeared by the end of the eighteenth century. The relative major now reigned alone as a substitute for the dominant in the minor mode. This situation, too, could not remain fixed for long. By the time of Schumann and Chopin, the minor mode and its relative major are often identified, considered as the same key, so that any polarity is no longer possible (as in the Chopin Scherzo in B flat minor/D flat major or the Fantasy in F minor/A flat major.) The instability of the function of the minor triad is clearly a force for historical change." So, indeed, this is a classical thing.
The great frustration behind most Romantic sonatas in the minor (and yes, most of them are in the minor) is that Classically, they need to go to the relative major, but by the Romantic aesthetic that would be very much like the Red Queen, running to stay in the same place. Since the weight of tradition was still in force, though, what with the giant lumbering behind, most of these sonatas try to create a chromatic blur between the two key areas, such as Chopin's Op. 58. Of course, the problem here is that since the first group is agitatedly trying to go somewhere and the second group is so much more relaxed in its discursiveness (this sonata is very Italian...), the discourse almost feels over at the end of the exposition.
A few works do try to take the Romantic aesthetic to its logical extreme: one of the interesting ones is the Alkan sonata, with its interesting key scheme of i-(VI-iv)-IV in the exposition and i-(V of III)-III in the recapitulation. Notwithstanding the general vulgar virtuosity of much of the development, I somehow doubt this scheme could have been invented without the clear programme stated ("Quasi-Faust": the characters are even given their own key areas as well as themes when first exposed, with Faust in i, Mephistopheles in VI, Gretchen in iv then IV, and God as a dominant pedal leading to III for the reprise of Gretchen's theme avec bonheur). It does work well: i-IV has the pull toward the subdominant beloved of the Romantic period while still increasing the energy by moving to a sharp-side key, and the move from i to III is polarised and dramatised by a huge dominant preparation (marked Le Seigneur, even). But this work is very exceptional due to its programme, as I mentioned. We must not forget also that Alkan was one of the pioneers of progressive tonality (consider the Symphony in c-e and the Concerto in g-F), so that I would classify his practice here certainly not as a return to a Classical spirit, but simply as one among many ways to create one of the dramatic programmatic structures he loved so much. [Though I have my doubts whether they always work beyond the programme or novelty effects, outside the wonderful Cello Sonata Op. 47 that is an unacknowledged masterwork – though maybe the reason I think so is that it is very Classical in spirit, even in the programmatic slow movement.]
OK, this seems to have expanded way beyond what I wanted it to be. I tried to stick with examples that I actually have memorised; they ought to be representative. Double sharp (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Whew! Lots of stuff here. Thanks mate. I'll copy this to my sandbox. A lot to think about. You say: "the Classical style views the minor mode as essentially unstable". Is it again the same old old story that the minor chord is not a natural resonance or was it something entirely different? On a related note: When you personally hear a modulation from minor to relative does the brightening feel less, more, or equally intense than for a modulation from major to dominant? Or is there no way you can give a general answer and it depends on the actual modulation? Basemetal 15:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
It really depends on the style. In a Romantic sonata form, I tend to find the brightening very intense (for example in both sonatas of Chopin), even more intense than a major mode going to the dominant. In a Classical sonata form, I tend to find that the composer has muted it so that it has equal weight. I'll consider my beloved Haydn Quartet Op. 50 No. 4 in F minor (if you don't know that quartet, you should!). The opening minor feels really unstable, as though it is crying out to be resolved. The syncopations continue through even when A major is reached, and so do the forzato outbursts within a general piano dynamic, and the whirling accompaniment feels disqueting to me. The lurch of this second group into D major at the start of the development feels more defiant, but it's not complete for me yet because it's not in the home key and the tonality slides away from D quickly. The tension keeps going through the recapitulation, with foreboding unisons. And then, the first subject reappears midway through the recapitulation, again forte, but now falling onto A instead of A, and now the second group is shouted forte from the rooftops, we are in the home key, and this shift is the one that to me feels like the initial minor-relative major shift in a Romantic sonata form! (You really see here how, while for Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven C minor is most related to the parallel C major, for the next generation of Romantic composers it is most related to the relative E-flat major!)
There has been much theoretical talk about the relative stability and naturalness of the major and minor modes, even if we restrict it to the period we are talking about (so taking the 1770s as an approximate cut-off). Frankly, I'm not sure I believe any of them, and I'm not sure if Haydn or Mozart did either. What I do find real is a difference of mood, that the major really does feel less clouded than the minor, and I am personally quite convinced that Haydn and Mozart would have felt that and used that in their music – consider how the greatest expressions of despair in Mozart are all in minor keys (to name a few: the C minor slow movements from KV 271 and KV 364; the F-sharp minor slow movement from KV 488; the G-minor string quintet KV 516; Pamina's G minor aria from Die Zauberflöte – and she prepares to commit suicide in the same key). I don't think this affect of the modes is really subverted until we get to Schubert, as Wittgenstein pointed out, most famously in Die schöne Müllerin. (For a less famous example that I love, try Heiss mich nicht reden, D 877 No. 2.) I'm not sure how much of this is because he is helped by the text, but a purely instrumental example occurs in the third movement of Haydn's Emperor Quartet Op. 76 No. 3. Perhaps that example helps me put a finger on how this happens – a purely expressive alternation, when you are sure, despite the sweetness of the music, that the major mode is a fiction that will pass. When hearing the major-mode section in the trio, you know that Haydn must return to reprise the opening period, and that he cannot stay in that heaven, and that impermanence makes that glimpse all the more bittersweet. Melodies of utter simplicity can have this effect too: I am affected somewhat that way by the slow movements of Mozart's concerti KV 595 and 622 (the clarinet one), as well as Haydn's Emperor Hymn (also in Op. 76 No. 3) and the Piano Trio Hob:XV/14. All are in major, but I find that they can induce tears. Double sharp (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
By "put a finger on how this happens", you mean "put a finger on how this affect of the modes is subverted"? Basemetal 15:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Double sharp (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Which Wittgenstein? Basemetal 19:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Ludwig, in his Culture and Value. Double sharp (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Could you point out one lied of the Schö. Mül. to listen to? Did that Wittgenstein mention one particular number? The cycle? Basemetal 20:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
He didn't mention either, but #19 (Der Müller und der Bach) is probably the most famous example. It is the last five songs that have the most complex tonal relationships, and Rosen claims that they form a group tonally centered around E minor:
16. Die liebe farbe, b (B)
17. Die böse farbe, B (b)
18. Trockne Blumen, e–E–e
19. Der Müller und der Bach, g–G
20. Des Baches Wiegenlied, E
This major–minor contrast has already been intimated, for example in #6 (Der Neugierige), #10 (Tränenregen), #12 (Pause), and #15 (Eifersucht und Stolz). In #16, the song is in B minor, with B major being used for memories. In #17, the song itself is in B major, but elements of B minor keep forcing themselves in in forte and fortissimo (for instance, the piano introduction has I brutally cut off by i, and the song's first modulation is to v instead of V). In #18, the E major is used for a fantastic future vision of self-pity, before we are brought back to reality by the dying away in E minor. #19 then starts in G minor, the largest harmonic distance between any two songs in the cycle. The confirmation of the miller's decision of suicide crucially happens in G major, though, which lets it stay in the E minor area. Finally #20: I can do no better than to quote Rosen, who says "The modal purity of the last song is a consolation, the lullaby that the stream sings as a requiem." Double sharp (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Another thing about minor-key sonata forms[edit]

@Basemetal: If you are like Mozart, you probably want to save the major-key resolution to the finale (e.g. KV 388, KV 421, KV 466, and KV 516). So you then need to turn the major-key second subject to the minor mode in the recapitulation, and it will not accept this without a reformulation. (For one, tonicisation of ii is impossible in the minor, at least in the absence of an incredible amount of chromaticism to make the scale degree 6 seem normal – for example, KV 312.) Fine examples of how to do this may be found in most of Haydn's double-variation sets. I would recommend the first movement of the C minor Piano Trio, Hob XV:13, except that that's the opposite way (minor to major). Double sharp (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again double sharp. Basemetal 18:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
A very weird trope connected to this is a recapitulation, in a major-key work, that starts in the parallel minor. This one died out fairly quickly: the only Mozart example I know of is in KV 9/i, and since he was but eight one cannot help but wonder if it was Leopold's idea. The only two Haydn examples I can think of are the Symphony No. 47/i (1772) and the Quartet Op. 76 No. 4/ii (1797). (One might playfully consider now the idea of a website entitled "Sonata Tropes", including such things as "Development Ending in vi", "Development Ending in i", "Recapitulation Starting in i", "Modulating Second Theme" [e.g. KV 493, KV 516]...) Double sharp (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
There could be a bunch of such tropes already collected as examples in Rosen's Sonata Forms possibly? Have you read it? I haven't read it, although I used to own it Face-grin.svg. Basemetal 10:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, many of them are there, although the collection is fairly heavy on Haydn and Mozart. It would be very nice to have a statistical analysis of the usage of these tropes in the second half of the 18th century, but unfortunately too much of the material is too hard to access, and the datings of many works are not secure. It could be a good lifetime project... Double sharp (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
PS: Have you read Goldman's Harmony in Wester Music? If you have, how does its analyses compare with the ones on the site? Basemetal 10:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever been here?[edit]

Do you know this site? And this? Then you probably know who Sylvie-Anne Ménard is. Basemetal 18:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know of her and this site. I might use that one to illustrate the point sonata expositions going to the relative major – there is always some increasing animation to compensate to the reduce in harmonic tension, which can come either from a more animated texture or a faster harmonic rhythm (in this case, both). I'm not so sure I agree with her "V" faces, though. Maybe the face would be right for one of Beethoven's V9 explosions (e.g. Op. 7, Op. 31 No. 1, Op. 53, Op. 57), but probably not for a graceful Mozartian V4
. I would also prefer to see some of the increased relaxation of IV in ii and vi as well (all having subdominant character). But I like how I6
gets its own face. No doubt people will scold me for it, but to me, it needs to be a separate chord for the consistency of the principle of increasing harmonic rhythm before a cadence. It may arise from a vertical combination, but it is also a chord in itself that mixes the I and V functions (see for example Beethoven's fourth symphony, or Mozart's Fantasy KV 467 for examples of I6
used alone). Although I think that if it deserves a separate face, vii°7 deserves one separate from V as well!
Have you seen the earlier instalments? She's also done the piano sonata KV 545, the opening of the "grieving and despairing" slow movement of the piano concerto KV 488, the Lacrymosa from the Requiem KV 626. I do find the faces a little too obvious in their expression, though – I'd prefer them more controlled, not forgetting how beautiful Mozart's grief tends to sound. Maybe I wouldn't mind so much for a song (may I recommend KV 523?) or an aria (may I recommend Pamina's from Die Zauberflöte?). Double sharp (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused that they don't use lowercase for minor chords, but generally speaking how do you like their analytical model? In the beginning Luce Beaudet says it is based on Richard Franko Goldman's Harmony in Western Music. Btw, have you seen this? Basemetal 08:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Not using lowercase for minor chords is rather a European thing. I got used to it. I actually quite liked the analytical model when I first read it, as it seems to hold up quite well in practice. But I haven't read it recently so I'll have to reread it to fully answer your questions. BTW, for a nice example of the parallelisme d'accords de quinte...imagine le beau lot de quintes consécutives!, see Mozart's(!) Piano Concerto KV 595, ii (b. 104–106), in which we have a nice series of horrifying consecutive fifths between the first violin and the solo piano (look at the sixth page of the pdf). Another equally horrifying(?) case is in the Sanctus of his Requiem (yes, I know it's Süssmayr, but it is good enough to be Mozart). Double sharp (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh, here's one thing I really do disagree with: the case of the omnibus progression, discussed as hors-tonal. This feels nothing more than like a sequence where various tonalities are implied, but left before they are confirmed, in the Chaikovsky example given. As a simpler example, imagine a chord progression like B7-E7-A7-D7-G7- going round the circle of fifths; each chord could imply the key that it is the dominant of, but it is simply passed through without being confirmed. As for the Beethoven Op. 111 example, it's not long enough that I feel the tonality has really been held in abeyance. In b. 1–2 we are in C minor; in b. 3–4 we repeat it a fifth up in F minor. So the repetition in b. 5 feels like it starts in B minor, upon which i6
of B minor transforms into ii6
in A major, and then I simply hear (all in A major) V6
going to I going to ii6
/IV, then vii°7/IV, and then IV, vii°7/V, and I6
. Then we tonicise vi, which turns out to be just iv of the original C minor. I don't feel that we have left the sphere of tonality for a second, but merely have been bouncing around the subdominant area (iv, iv/iv, and VI). I feel the same way about the other Beethoven example. Similarly, the Mozart example looks odd with such resolutions as A7-Fm/A, but is that not simply a case of, as they said in a previous page, a V-I in F minor where the 7th has been lowered (B to Bdouble flat = A)? So this is just a modulating sequence (rare in a Classical piece, but the Fantasy KV 475 is extraordinary). Double sharp (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
(BTW, historically this progression, like E major-C major, does not derive from any sort of "anticipation" of the 3rd of the following chord, but rather is a case of ellipsis. It was a common trope in the early Classical era for developments to end by going to the relative minor and then lead back to the tonic without much further ado, and this progression, being V/vi–I, is simply one way to play with the trope – by saying "we know the middle already". It also helps if the theme that starts the recapitulation begins on scale degree 3, of course. It is by no means the only way to play with this trope. Mozart in KV 543/i plays with it in another way, by giving us the V/vi, but then giving us a bar of silence instead of the vi, and then leading us through a sequence: V/ii-V/V-V-I, and we have arrived. Of course, since this sort of use of "prefabricated material" and "tropes" is quite alien to us after the death of Beethoven, after which we start expecting everything to be derived using the hallowed process of motivic development, it stands to reason that it would not be considered in a survey today. Although to some extent vi and I can substitute for each other, so perhaps it should not be surprising even so.) Double sharp (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah ben batêche! When I'll have read and painfully analyzed all this clearly je vais me réveiller moins niaiseux. I wish they had provided MIDI files (at least of the piano reductions if not of the full orchestra scores) besides those piano recordings, so I could slow things down. Merci encore mon ami double sharp. This looks like a symbol for a crusader. You could have T-shirts made with this. But maybe you don't want your friends IRL to know you are Captain Double Sharp, dit "El double sharpefe", the masked avenger, leaving an double sharp sign with his sword wherever he goes to fight injustice. What a pity you can't make it your signature. Basemetal 14:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to originally, but it's a picture, so it wouldn't be allowed. The Unicode character is not visible on all platforms and mine is among the unfavoured ones. Also, as my userpage frankly admits, "This was always intended to be a temporary username, until I thought of something better. Alas, I never did." Maybe it's not that bad after all, though. The symbol certainly gives a different sense than the name does. Double sharp (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
P.S. I needed to Google your colourful language to understand it, hilariously confirming the statement at the end of the lede of Québec French profanity: "For other French-speakers, sacres may have no meaning at all." Double sharp (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Can you now see the potential for Captain Double Sharp? His trademark is that he is ambidextrous and fights with one sword in each hand. What's sharper than a sharp sword? Two sharp swords!! The character could become more famous than Doctor Syn (especially since, besides shooting, fencing, riding, dancing, somersaulting, etc. he can also analyze the most difficult and intricate piece of 20th c. atonal music and play it on a church organ!) if only this was 1915. Alas, this is not 1915! Today's children probably laugh at Doctor Syn. I listened two years ago on BBC radio to a reading of a abridgment of that series of novels (of course not to the whole thing but I happened to catch one installment by chance and I fully agree with them, as I've never in my life heard something so silly) but that was probably meant for people who used to be children in 1915. Basemetal 20:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

interesting fact[edit]

Just a quick copy-paste-GT from what I found in the Internet, which maybe shows us another interesting aspect of the ultimate end of the Transfermium Wars (or maybe not):

In August 1997, the statement took representatives of the countries - members of the IUPAC Committee proposals. Russia, just a few days before the meeting made their membership fee and only then admitted to the vote, was not able to defend their rights and interests to the fullest. The overwhelming majority of votes (with two votes "against") Committee proposals were approved and became effective for use worldwide.

Anyways, I'm leaving Moscow until very late September or early October; hope you'll be done with lead when I'm back!--R8R (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, do you know why the Dubna team wanted to name element 105 nielsbohrium rather than just bohrium? An easy suggestion would be the striking similarity between, say, bohrate and borate, with that slightest difference completely lost in the Russian language due to a different writing script, but is it possible to prove this statement with references?--R8R (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Do you have the original papers from the Dubna team mentioned in the TWG report? That might offer an explanation. If not, we could always use one from the German team proposing nielsbohrium for element 107. I'm not sure they would mention it though, since the reason would be pretty clear: no one wants to have two unrelated elements called бор and борий, and the oxyanions would be pronounced the same.
(By the way, the situation is even worse in Polish, where boron and bohrium are bor and bohr respectively: this is so bad that it is recommended that the h in the latter be pronounced.) Double sharp (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What moved and what stayed[edit]

You say: "If you are wondering why this table, contrary to all others in WP, has lanthanum under yttrium [etc.]". The way you put it sounds like you moved yttrium but left scandium stay where it was, or worse, that you actually moved lanthanum. Of course a quick peek at the table will show you didn't, but it may be clearer to say: "If you are wondering why this table, contrary to all others in WP, has yttrium and scandium above lanthanum [instead of lutetium, etc.]". Just saying. Please ignore my comment if you don't think it useful. Basemetal 00:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that is a good point. Changed according to your suggestions! Double sharp (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Double sharp, you now say:

If you are wondering why this table, contrary to all others in WP, has scandium and yttrium above lanthanum (instead of lutetium), it is because La under Y is consistent with electron configurations and does not show an exceptional "kink" in the trend towards increasing basicity, electropositivity, and size down the periodic table. For Hf under Zr, there is no choice, but there is one for what to put under Y. Lu under Y works somewhat because of the lanthanide contraction, but if we are going to start arguing by similar size, instead of trends, we need to put Be and Mg over Zn as well, and I don't think anyone wants that now. Besides, Sc still shows differences from Lu, so the argument is suspect in the first place. Notice that I value chemical properties over electron configuration when deciding where to place elements.

Comment in passing: This reads like you are mixing arguments and being selective about which ones to count. Saying "La under Y is consistent with electron configurations" is inconsistent with saying "I value chemical properties over electron configuration". It also results in more electron configuration anomalies compared to Sc-Y-Lu-Lr, as explained here. The "exceptional "kink" in the trend towards increasing basicity, electropositivity, and size down the periodic table" for Sc-Y-Lu-Lr is an unavoidable outcome of the lanthanide contraction. And that is not a size based argument but an acknowledgement of the existence of the 5f metals. Same thing happens with Hf under Zr, as you say. It's fine to show Sc-Y-La-Ac, and I suggest your current rationale (which is nicely concise) doesn't do you proud. Sandbh (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's very confused because it was a failed attempt to summarise the whole thing into one paragraph, which I doubt is actually possible. I was dissatisfied with it, but hadn't come up with a plan that fully satisfied me, so I let it stand. Since this is my userpage, I've edited it to "If you are wondering why this table, contrary to all others in WP, has scandium and yttrium above lanthanum (instead of lutetium), it is because that's how I first saw it. Since this is a periodic table of where I have been on WP, it simply reflects how the mental one burned in my head for years looks. There are other reasons, but I could not possibly do them justice in a single paragraph (I tried; it didn't work very well)."
If I was trying to one-paragraph summarise it (which maybe I will attempt again later), I would probably say: "the main reason is that Sc-Y-La-Ac gives a trend that looks like the s-block groups while Sc-Y-Lu-Lr gives a trend that looks like the d-block groups. I favour the former because the chemistry of these elements is much more like the s-block metals than the d-block metals." The electron configuration thing is frankly just a sanity check that I think we can do without: nobody complains about Ni (d8s2), Pd (d10), and Pt (d9s1) in the sme column. But frankly, for my userpage the sentimental rationale (that's how it appeared in the textbooks I learnt from) is more honest. Double sharp (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Thorium half sandwich.png listed for discussion[edit]


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Thorium half sandwich.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Leyo 12:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The best article lead in all of WP[edit]

The lead to article Everyday life in early 19th-century Spain shrewdly notes that "the early 19th century [...] happened in Spain as well as several other countries" and adds the pertinent observation that "at that time it was usual for most people to have an everyday life". What can I say? It made my day. I am greatly tempted to read the rest of the article but on the other hand I am a bit reluctant to as I am afraid I'll be disappointed, since not many people can keep this level of inspiration for long. Whoever wrote that lead is a true comic talent. Basemetal 08:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The whole article does have a distinct tendency to read like a charmingly incompetent school project. The weird link placements are also jarring. Indeed the lede seems to have backed unwittingly into being actually amusing, but such frank statements of the obvious could hardly continue being funny if they lasted significantly longer. Originally the lede read "The Romanticism was a cultural movement that spread throughout Europe from the end of the XVIII century until the first half of the XIX century.", which I suppose was also incongruously funny in the sense that it promised much but failed to deliver. Oh, another strangely amusing bit is "The best moments to talk to the girl you liked were during mass. But until the boy could come to her house, he had to pass an exam in which the family asked a lot of questions." Double sharp (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Encouraged by your bold example (Be bold!) I've read it! That's exactly what I think it is, a school assignment. From the name of the article creator she is Spanish or at least a Spanish speaker. She's got no other contribution to WP. She's just registered to be able to create this article. I remember reading on the talk page of some article once a comment left by a high school student that they had to write an essay and upload it to WP: IOW the assignment was, besides writing it, to upload it. Why? I'm really puzzled as to what school teachers think WP is. Here the assignment went one better: the essay had to be written in English by this Spanish speaker and uploaded to the English WP. She writes "at night people used to break into their houses because there was no lighting". She really seems to mean they broke into their own houses. Reminds me of A Fish Called Wanda. "So the Urban Police Rules recommended painting the entrance of the houses purple". Since purple is your favorite color (now that reminds me of Monty Python, except there it was blue), maybe you can explain to me why purple is more visible in pitch black than, say, white. Not to mention that the pigment must have been astronomically more expensive than simple whitewashing. "The other floors were usually bedrooms where the owner of the house’s family used to live before they died". Obviously life after death does require some adjustments. "Nobody came there afterwards because of the smell". "When children were born, they dressed themselves with diapers". Some cynical 21st century editor linked the phrase "conquer a girl" to article Sexual assault. Sheesh. "(to shave themselves) they used water, soap, blowtorches, and knives" (!). "When they [women] went shopping they covered their heads with feathers or thongs" (!). The same editor (probly) linked "thongs" to article Thong (clothing). Is that nice? She's just a poor middle high school girl trying to comply with an idiotic assignment. Basemetal 15:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Another masterpiece of cynicism in the text is "Like the servants, [men] were in charge of controlling the people who enter and exit the house and of course his wife (especially the wife)." Certainly this reminds me of this passage from I Am A Cat:
P.S. Since that particular article of clothing is mentioned in the text: I have wanted for a while to write an article entitled corset effect (chemistry), but got stymied because there are just too many side effects associated with the real article of clothing, not the metaphorical one. In the meantime, tetrahedrane at least offers a vague impression of what this mysterious effect is (and should give you a picture of why it's called that). Double sharp (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Well can't say I completely understood but I noticed that all Google hits for "corset effect" refer to tetrahedranes. Was the concept invented for such compounds? Does it occur elsewhere? And is that effect understood? I noticed the article says the mechanism involves "Van der Waals strain". Is it by definition? But the lead also seems to say this was only a suggestion by Günther Maier. Of course that was in 1978. Btw, I love "I Am A Cat". And I love Natsume Souseki. IMHO together with Tanizaki they're at the top. Btw Natsume Souseki died too young, but Tanizaki, should clearly have been the first Japanese awarded the Nobel but he died before those idiots in Stockholm got around to it and they don't do posthumous you see. Kawabata is ok, but there's just no comparison. Basemetal 11:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, IIRC it was first discussed in Maier's 1978 paper about his synthesis of C4(t-Bu)4. The idea behind the corset effect, expressed as simply as I think I can make it, is that although the bonds in the tetrahedrane core would normally be quite happy to break, they cannot because the tert-butyl groups are too bulky. If the core bonds broke, the t-Bu groups would be shoved into each other (hence the van der Waals strain), and that's even less nice than the strained tetrahedrane structure. (Do you see how it got its name now? ^_^) I really love these highly strained yet beautifully symmetric compounds – one of these days I should try to rewrite tetrahedrane... Double sharp (talk) 13:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Yes, maybe corset effect (chemistry) would do better as a redirect to an appropriate section of tetrahedrane. Except that there isn't really one yet. It should be noted also that this effect will only go so far: already C4(t-Bu)3SiMe3 is significantly less stable. On the other hand, we have already gone tantalisingly down the route to unsubstituted C4H4, since C4H(SiMe3)3 is known. C4H4 is certainly a very interesting molecule because (1) it is pretty (always an important factor); (2) it poses challenges to theory – how strained can a molecule get?; (3) will be hard to synthesise (you don't say); and (4) may have truly strange properties, both because of the very high symmetry and also because of all the strained cyclopropane rings stuck together. Finally, (5) if it could be made and is stable, it would be one amazing jet fuel. AFAIK, though, we still haven't been able to get rid of the need for the corset effect entirely, and we are still nowhere near figuring out how to make C4H4 itself – although it is predicted quite widely that it should be fairly stable once formed, being trapped in a deep energetic well that forbids isomerisation to cyclobutadiene. Double sharp (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unbinilium[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Unbinilium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks pretty good so far--Lead and references needs work, some prose can be tightened or clarified, but it's not going to be a herculean effort. Hopefully this one won't attract the "helpful" attentions that Iron did. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iron[edit]

The article Iron you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Iron for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of it[edit]

Million award logo.svg The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Iron (estimated annual readership: 1,000,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Double sharp (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The only other element articles that could possibly get Million Awards are aluminium and gold (hmm, next projects?) Double sharp (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gallium[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gallium you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Unbinilium[edit]

The article Unbinilium you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Unbinilium for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jclemens -- Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Halfstar Hires.png The Half Barnstar
The other half is a Dutch Barnstar (not yet created); great work on your edits Double Sharp, you make the Molybdenum Double Mint...well, Mint. The Apollo Seed (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)