Talk:Key signature names and translations

This page was proposed for deletion by Remsense (talk · contribs) on 3 May 2024.

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Ut

Should the French "ut" also be included as C? - that seems to be the most used rather than "do", e.g. 'Suite no 1, BWV 1066, en ut majeur'

OldMalden (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be. --Gnom (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"ut", today, sounds slightly old-fashioned in French. It is at times used to denote keys, but "do" is more common. 86.219.33.10 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

::Ut and do are pretty much interchangeable for naming keys, chords, etc. and talking of the key of a musical work. It is true ut is a bit old-fashioned even for that purpose but it is more formal so that in books, etc. of some formality, with a strong "written language" flavor ut (like above "suite [...] en ut majeur") would be used. One context where I always hear ut and never do is when one speaks of a wind instrument which is not a transposing instrument: it is always "le hautbois [for example] est un instrument en ut" never "ceci est un instrument en do" even in the most informal and colloquial contexts [[User:Basemetal|Basemetal]] ([[User talk:Basemetal|talk]]) 05:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)Basemetal 19:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed do

To describe the French system as "fixed do solmisation" is misleading - the link, besides, links to "fixed do solfège", which is more correct. Solmisation, unless I am mistaken, is by definition movable. The French system is not a solmisation, precisely because it is fixed. 86.219.33.10 (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Belgium and Flanders"

Funny little mistake: someone said "in Belgium and Flanders", which is like saying "in Texas and the USA". Flanders is a Belgian district. Trust me, I live there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.224.152 (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Very true. --Gnom (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations

Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

== Variants of the German system? == One variant of the German system is mentioned in the article., that used in the Netherlands: instead of H (for B-natural) and B (for B-flat) the Dutch use B and Bes. Does anyone know of any other variant of the German system? For example has anyone ever seen things like say H (for B-natural) and Hes (for B-flat), or maybe Bis (for B-natural) and B (for B-flat)? Don't look at me. I certainly have never seen anything like that. I'm just asking. For the sake of completeness., you know. We're perfectionists. [[User:Basemetal|Basemetal]] ([[User talk:Basemetal|talk]]) 21:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)Basemetal 19:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Standard system"??

Really? I mean, why is the English scheme the "standard" system? I don't believe it is ever referred to as such in normal musical discussion in English; and it is hard to believe that users of any non-English system would suddenly call another system the "standard" one.

Unless someone can come up with a citation for this, I will delete all the "standard" stuff, and call it the "English system". What would be interesting to have is an explanation of how the English system (which I would agree seems simpler, even though it is what I grew up with) evolved from the German one.

Imaginatorium (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who used the term standard system for what you call the "English" system. It is certainly the most usual and widespread system around the globe outside of Continental Europe, Russia, the Middle East, Latin America, French- and Portuguese-speaking Africa and Vietnam. More significant than its actual current geographic spread, is that languages which are beginning to develop the terms related to Western musical theory in their vocabulary always go for that system. Places that were colonized by European countries using a system other than the "English" one, such as Indonesia (a former Dutch colony) or the Philippines (a former Spanish colony, albeit with a long period of American occupation in the beginning of the 20th c.) that would be expected to use the systems used by their former colonial powers, in fact use the "English" system. Note than neither of those places has anything to do with England or the English language. And the "English" system is making inroads even in places where traditionally one of the other two systems is still used, thanks to local musicians working in jazz, blues, rock, or other US and UK musical styles. This international success of the "English" system is not only due, I suspect, to the international importance of the English language and to the cultural influence and economic power of the English speaking countries, but also to the inherent simplicity and logic of that system. All this I believe warrants my use of the term standard. I don't have a citation. I don't think it's even worth looking for one. Can you find a citation calling it the "English" system? But if you insist on changing the system name from standard to "English", as being more particularly connected, ''nowadays'' (see below) with the English language and English-speaking countries: then be my guest. :The """English""" system, did not evolve from the German system. Both evolved independently, from the system used in the music of the Catholic Church from the 9th c. (pseudo-Hucbald), or possibly even before, onwards. At the time there were only the seven letters A to G for the diatonic tones and no accidental signs (flat, sharp) to indicate the chromatic tones. Since the B was sometimes flat and sometimes natural, and that was the only note at the time which could be either flat or natural, they got into the habit of designating the B-flat with a round or soft B (hence the later use of the Old French term "bé mol", which meant "soft b", for the flat sign) and the B-natural with a hard or square B (hence the later use of the Old French term "bé carre", which meant "square b", for the natural sign). The "English" system evolved from that system once the use of the accidental signs had developped. The distinction between square B and round B was dropped since it was no longer needed, as you could write B-flat using the flat sign. You've got to realize there is nothing specifically English about this "English" system. It was used by the whole of Europe, except for Germany, until around the 17th c. or later. This is yet another reason why calling it the English system would not be justified. It is only in the 17th c., or later, that France, Italy, Spain, Portugal started using the solfeggio syllables to designate the notes. Before then the solfeggio syllables were just solfeggio syllables, that is, syllables used to ''sing'' the notes, ''not'' the names of the notes. I have myself seen a small treatise in French on the playing of the viola da gamba from the mid-17th c. where the names of the notes were exactly the same as those of the "English" system. The current French names of the notes based on solfeggio syllables were not used. That system only became "English" by virtue of everyone else switching to another system and the English being the only ones left using it. Germany, on the other hand, kept both the round B and the square B. The square B in time they mistook for an H which is why they designate the B-natural with an H. As to where the "is" (sharp) and "es" (flat) suffixes came from in the German system, I have no idea. There are places around the English Wikipedia where the above information may be found (except for the bit about the German suffixes for sharp and flat which I've never run across), but it is not all in one place but spread out in a bunch of articles (solfege, notation, solmization, and what not). Signed: [[User:Basemetal|Basemetal]] (write to me [[User talk:Basemetal|here]]) 10:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC) :Hi [[User:Imaginatorium|Imaginatorium]] I thought about your remarks. I find, indeed, that the word "standard" suggests that it's some fixed normative terminology. And it's true I've never seen what you call the "English" system designated in this way. (But neither have I seen it called the "English" system.) So I replaced "standard" with "usual" which suggests nothing more than that it's a phrase used simply for the practical purpose of identifying something that doesn't have any other convenient way of being designated. Hopefully we can agree on this, that among speakers of English and on this English Wikipedia, your so-called "English" system ''is'' the usual system. Signed: [[User:Basemetal|Basemetal]] (write to me [[User talk:Basemetal|here]]) 17:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)Basemetal 19:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Soviet states

I am Russian, and I can say that the statement that Russian uses Fixed Do is true, but Russian musicians also use the German system quite often as a sort of shorthand. For example, instead of writing "Диапазон фортепиано — от ля субконтроктавы до до пятой октавы" (The diapason of the piano is from A0 to C8), one may write "Диапазон фортепиано A₂—c⁵" (see Helmholtz pitch notation), and instead of фа-диез минор one often writes fis-moll or just fis. Shorthands using Fixed do (e.g. Ля₂, Ми♭ instead of ми-бемоль мажор) are possible but rarely used. Chord symbols in songs are written with ♯ and ♭ instead of is and es, but typically with B and H in their German values. The "usual" system is only occasionally used in Russian publications.

And since the Soviet Union was once one country which shared common standards, it would be natural that other Post-Soviet people use the same systems as the Russians, i.e. Fixed Do and the German system. I know that Ukrainians do. Estonians do, too, but they prefer the German system, probably because they are much more influenced by Germans than Russians are. E.g. saying "do-mažoor" is accepted in Estonian, but "C-duur" is much more frequent. So is the information in the article about Azeri (that is uses the "usual" system) and Lithuanian (that it uses both the German and the "usual" systems) correct? Burzuchius (talk) 11:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Translation example

Originally the example was B minor, then some anonymous user changed it to E-flat minor, then it was changed to C major but reverted. How could we change the example without a revert happening? It’s essentially a way of “compromising”. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:A457:245E:8ACB:1021 (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could use a different example altogether. How about... F-sharp major? I think that would be a nice compromise. What do you think? 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:A457:245E:8ACB:1021 (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we keep E-flat minor? Gnom (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just feel like using F-sharp major instead. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:A457:245E:8ACB:1021 (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will go make the edit now. Or maybe not right now. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:A457:245E:8ACB:1021 (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now made the edit. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:A457:245E:8ACB:1021 (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]