Talk:List of musical symbols/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about List of musical symbols. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Clefs

) I've been trying to improve the Clef page lately. The clef section here is admirably elegant and spare. But I think the Tenor clef could be added, since on the clef page it is listed, along with the treble, bass and alto clefs, as the fourth clef used in modern notation. (Other clefs are labeled "obsolete".) --Gheuf 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Tenor clef should probably be added. 212.143.66.129 11:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

C clef

Since the alto and tenor clefs are widely confused (even among musicians with degrees), it is unfortunate that this article doesn't gives us a separate tenor clef illustration. It's likely to exacerbate the problem. TheScotch (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing "Melody transfer" (?)

Hi great article! I've been working on teaching myself piano and have been forever coming to this page to figure out what everything means. Just came across one that's not on here though: a diagonal line going from one note on one clef to another note on another clef. If I had to guess, I think it's saying that the melody part is switching from one hand to the other. I've seen this line both solid and dashed, but never wavy like the glissimo example. --jwanders^Talk 22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It points from a note on one staff to one on another staff, I assume you mean. This indicates that an interior voice (whether or not it's a "melody") continues even though it's switching hands. This is especially common on keyboard reductions of choral music. I've never heard of a name for this line, though. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if we could call that a "symbol" as much as just a convention. That is, I don't think its use is all that formalized, and usually the composer needs to indicate whether it means to switch hands or is just there to help the performer parse the information. I think Webern even used it on chamber scores to help the conductor figure out which instruments were playing the main theme. (But I could be wrong on the composer.) Torc2 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

missing "rip"

there is a notation (should be in the 'note relationships' section) for a rip, which is where on a brass instrument (only seen it for the horn, but it should be doable for any other instrument) where like a gliss, you play notes between the two notes, but instead of playing chromatically, you kind of force through each partial between the two notes. it is represented by a straight slanted line between the two notes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.164.231 (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Missing: Natural Sharp

There's a missing bit of notation I recently ran across, and tried to look up here: the "natural sharp". After a double sharp a natural sign followed by a sharp sign indicates a "normal" sharp. Maybe someone who can work with the images on this page can add this? 67.40.200.194 17:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like a distinct symbol, but rather two symbols being used together, with their usual meanings (natural = "cancel previous accidentals" followed by sharp = "raise by a semitone"). — Gwalla | Talk 22:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Microtonality

I think the quartertone signs et al should be grouped together rather than intersperced with traditional signs. Interspercing them gives readers the false impression that these signs are standardized. TheScotch (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. — Gwalla | Talk 22:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Revisions

I've made a few corrections on titles, punctuation, theoretically incorrect definitions, etc. Whoever has supplied the notated examples: would it be possible to find an image of a NON-INVERTED mordent, and also of an INVERTED TURN? We should also have illustrations of turns placed directly above a given note, and those placed to the right of the note (because of their different meanings). Also, can the key signatures have clefs? (Without a clef, they are meaningless.)

Another suggestion: Under "Ornaments", could anyone prepare a simple, two-column chart, showing "WRITTEN:" and "PLAYED:" (along with each ornament's name).

Thanks, anyone who can help with these matters! Prof.rick (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I added images for the non-inverted mordent, and the two requested turns. Also, I found images of the key signatures that include clefs. While I think it would be nice to add written/played columns to the table, I don't have time to do that right now... – jaksmata 20:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fortississimo

Isn't there also fff for a fortississimo (I think that's what it's called), and a ppp for pianississimo. Even louder and even softer. -- 142.59.94.192 (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some modern composers have even used four or five Ps or Fs. Musical dynamics are subjective and the use of more and more Ps or Fs is a direction for using the extreme range the instrument or voice is capable of. --Thomprod (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, not only. Most orchestral composers looked at the orchestra as a single instrument and their dynamics simply corresponded with how many players are participating at each given point. In almost all oboe solos, for an example, you can see the dynamic in the part is a p, or more often even, a pp - but of course the composer didn't want the player to play the solo as softly as he could! This is why in late romantic pieces more Ps and Fs can be seen more frequently - the orchestras had simply gotten much much bigger. --31.209.243.182 (talk)

This is too ambiguous. Can anyone expand on the meaning?

Current header of cleff section: "Clefs define the pitch range, or tessitura, of the staff on which it is placed. A clef is usually the leftmost symbol on a staff. Additional clefs may appear in the middle of a staff to indicate a change in register for instruments with a wide range. In early music, clefs could be placed on any of several lines on a staff."

I don't really understand what this is saying. How significant is the change in register? An octave? The minimum between the two clefs?
Lets say we have a piece of sheet music with a leftmost bass left.
The bottom line has a note, signaling a G. Then there is an in-line treble cleff followed by a note on the second to bottom line, also signaling a G.
Are these two notes in the same octave, or did it increase an octave with the register change?

I don't know, (and would appreciate any clarification) but also the article doesn't say. SFoster83 (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Normally the second note in your example would be two octaves higher, since the clefs represent fixed octaves. Even with transposing instruments, usually the transposition is the same in all clefs. One exception is French horns, which in some early composers tranposes down an octave in treble clef, but is at pitch (typically in C, not F) in bass clef. The uncertainty of this provides for some ambiguity in some early scores. But this is pretty rare.

That said, however, the most common changes are much less spectacular: instruments in bass clef (such as bassoons and cellos) often switch to tenor clef, for example, which only moves A-220 from the top line to the middle line. You can learn more at Clef. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

An instrumental part may use a clef change to avoid having to use many ledger lines to indicate very high or low notes in the normal clef for that instrument. In modern choral music, the tenor (and sometimes bass) parts may be written in bass clef (sounding actual pitch) or in treble clef sounding one octave below. --Thomprod (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Plucking of strings on bowed string instruments

What symbol is used for asking the player to pluck the string with the right hand instead of bowing it ? I couldn't find it in the article. Ro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.131.138 (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but check out the article on pizzicato. There's no picture, but there is a description of the notation. – jaksmata 14:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

As the article mentions, music for strings is played with the bow by default. The Italian abbreviation pizz. is written at the beginning of a passage intended to be plucked rather than bowed, and arco is written to cancel the use of plucking and indicate when normal bowing resumes. --Thomprod (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I see, but the article only mentions left-hand pizzicato. Can someone add the 'pizz' and acro notations.Ro

Pizzicato says that using the right-hand to pluck the strings is the normal method. Then it goes on to mention some music that calls for using the left hand (or both hands) instead of the usual right. --Thomprod (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Illustrate The Notes

This article should provide an illustration of the notes represented by the lines and spaces of the staff. Rtdrury (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Which staff? See the clef page for some of the possibilities. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Formula

The name of short notes is expressed by the formula $2^{n+2}$ but not $2^{2*n+2}$ where n is the number of flags. So the eighth has one flag ( $n=1$ ) and $2^{n+2}=2^{1+2}=2^{3}=8$ . The sixteenth has two flags ( $n=2$ ) and $2^{n+2}=2^{2+2}=2^{4}=16$ .Ermishin (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Key note signs

I found these in a Doflein violin method book. The Dofleins place them between key and time signatures. The examples shown would indicate A and G on a treble staff. Does anyone else use them? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

These may be examples of a C-clef? --Thomprod (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. The first one shows up after a treble clef and a three-sharp signature. For pieces in D major, they center the sign on the space just below the staff, after the usual two sharps. I don't have a Doflein viola or cello book handy, so I don't know whether they use the same sign with C or F clefs. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

From your two examples, it seems that the symbol indicates where the tonic note of the diatonic scale lies. If it was a sight-singing book, it could indicate what is called the movable do in solfege, but I have not seen this symbol before. --Thomprod (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Yes indeed, they do seem to mark the tonic. I suspect, given the context of those method books, it is for helping beginning readers. I ought to go back and see what they do with minor pieces and modulations, if any. From the lack of other response, I bet this mark is unique to (some of) the Doflein method books. I certainly haven't noticed it anywhere else. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

music

i do piano and i luv it!!! watty1009 11:01am saturday august 27 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.49.167 (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Octave signs

I've just changed the "octave" section of the article. I have numerous references to support my change. Here are two (the boldface is my own emphasis):

1) From The Norton Manual of Music Notation by George Heussenstamm, page 16, published by W. W. Norton & Company, New York and London:

" '8va' or '8,' written above the staff, indicates that the passage is to be performed one octave higher than written. '15ma' or '15' indicates that the music should be played two octaves higher. 'va' is an abbreviation of the Italian word for octave, ottava; the 'ma' in '15ma' refers to the Italian word for a fifteenth (two octaves), quindicesima. Avoid the incorrect '15va'. If these signs are placed below the staff, the notes are sounded one or two octaves lower than written. The word bassa (below) is sometimes added to the latter."

2. From Preparing Music Manuscript by Anthony Donato, pages 42-43, published by Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:

"Notes to be played an octave higher than written are given the sign 8 or 8va placed directly above the first note of the passage and followed by a broken line extending over the duration of the passage. A short vertical line at the end of the passage marks the termination of the transposition. In most instances no other mark of cancellation is needed, though the addition of the term loco may serve as a safeguard. Notes to be transposed by two octaves marked as above but with 15 or 15ma substituted for 8 or 8va. Two-octave transpositions are very rarely used. The same signs are used for transpositions one or two octaves lower by placing them below the staff."

It would be better still to have illustrations for 8va and 15ma placed below the staff, and I hope someone can add them. (I cannot.) As I pointed out in my article "edit summary", the a in 8va stands for the last a in ottava, not for alta. TheScotch (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Marcato/Martellato

Somebody had put Marcato as being separate/different from a dynamic accent and then put an image of the ^ symbol beside it which is not a marcato but a martellato symbol. Marcato and Dynamic Accents are one and the same and should be denoted with the > symbol. So i retitled the Marcato heading as Martellato and added Marcato to the Dynamic Accent heading. I just wanted to draw attention to this because although I retitled things properly it screwed up the links on the title and I didn't change the content yet. It also means that the images are mistitled. I'm not that au fait with wiki so maybe someone else can finish my half assed correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.228.23 (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Norton Manual of Music Notation by George Heussenstamm, published by W. W. Norton & Company, New York and London, p. 52: "MARCATO This vertical wedge [in following examples shown as ^ or upside-down ^, depending on the direction of the note stem], which always points away from the notehead, signals that the note or chord is to be played somewhat louder than an accented note or chord." Preparing Music Manuscript by Anthony Donato, Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 50: "Marcato signs, ^ and [upside down ^], are placed above or below note heads, opposite the direction of the stems. The sign always points away from the note head." I'm reverting the article. TheScotch (talk) 09:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A further source: Essential Dictionary of Musical Notation by Tom Gerou and Linda Rusk, Alfred Publishing Co., Inc., p.36: "When the marcato is placed over or under a note or chord, the note or chord is to be played with even more attack, and more marked, than an accent. [Example below shows ^ symbol with the word macarto beside it and an arrow pointing from the word to the symbol.]

Martellato is a bowing, not an accent. From The Technique of Orchestration by Kent Kennan and Donald Grantham, Third Edition, published by Prentice-Hall, pp.53-54: "The indication for [martellato] may be dots, arrowheads, accents, or a combination. Occasionally the word martele [French version of the Italian martellato--imagine acute accent on the final e] is written in....More often, however, the player simply chooses the martele bowing as being appropriate to the music at hand." TheScotch (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Articulation marks

Are pizzicato, harmonic, and bowing indications really articulation marks? TheScotch (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as the articulation is anything that is not merely the note (c' etc.) being played, but how it is supposed to be played. An up-bow has a different sound and appearance than a down-bow, and the same holds true for harmonics and pizzicati. T3thys::ben (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No, to articulate is to separate. Thus slurs, staccato, commas, and general pause marks are articulations, but harmonics and up-bow and down-bow indications are not. Walter Piston calls pizzicato a form of staccato, and in this sense I suppose it could be an articulation, but that's pushing. (The question was rhetorical.)TheScotch (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I'd suggest moving the up-bow and down-bow indications to the "Instrument specific" section. TheScotch (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

SVG?

Ideally, the article would use SVG versions of all the notation symbols. Would this be feasible? Ppk01 23:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it might be more useful to also have the Unicode equivalents. http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U1D100.pdf lists a lot of symbols not described here. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 06:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a section Musical symbols as text with the unicode symbols, music fonts, and the wikipedia music note templates. The idea is that many visitors to this page might want to know how to use the symbols within text. Hope this is helpful Robert Walker (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

How extensive?

How extensive is this going to be? I don't see the value in this beyond what's already in the existing notation articles. Seems like it's mainly an image gallery, which is prohibited on WP. Anyway, the lines and spaces on a staff don't show the chromatic scale, but rather the diatonic scale. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wahoofive (talk • contribs) 04:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is supposed to consolidate all of that information into one article. And besides, someone reading a piece of sheet music will occasionally encounter a symbol of which he or she does not know its meaning. This article provides a very good "legend" to those symbols, and it should reduce, if not eliminate, the necessity of having to search the 'Net to find them. Denelson 83 03:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

OMISSION There is no mention of the dotted note until section on the grace note. This needs to be included with a visual example as well. Thank You

Oh my. In the event that someone encounters something that they do not know I seriously doubt they would find it on this page – at least at the time I am posting this, this page is very partial.

I disagree that this page is useless. I can see that this might become a useful place for some people to turn to in the event that one comes across a symbol but knows nothing about what it's called. (How do you suppose someone would look up a mordent, say, or a tremolo, without knowing what it was called?) I might also add that some of the information could be expanded to include symbols, directions, etc. that are more specific to style -- rinforzando, for example. --Todeswalzer 03:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's basically a kind of stand-alone list article. Maybe it should be moved to List of symbols in modern musical notation? — Gwalla | Talk 22:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very useful page, though no doubt it could be improved still further. I found this page while looking for a symbol my wife had encountered in her piano music and didn't know. I didn't know either, despite my O-level music. A few seconds on this page, and we found it with a good explanation. Thanks Wikipedia!86.147.248.229 (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC).

Wondering if maybe someone should contact the author of this page to have all of that information added here: http://www.dolmetsch.com/musicalsymbols.htm

Missing

This article is quite informative. however, it lacks on other important figure in musical notation. What do a musical note mean and what is it's value if it has a double detached bar in between them? (i.e. like 2 Semibreves connected by a double bar at their tips which is detached) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borninbronx10 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are talking about tremolo and we have a separate article about it: Please see Tremolo#Notation. The example you describe generally means "a regular and rapid alternation between two notes". I agree it should be added to this article as well. --Thomprod (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for the name and meaning when a note has 1(or more) slash(es) through the stem. I think it means play the note twice for each slash - so a half note with a slash means play two quarter notes - with 2 slashes means 4 eighth notes, etc. But it seems to vary from piece to piece as I've seen 4 8th notes followed by a single slashed half note and in that case it means play 4 more 8th notes not 2 quarter notes. Any help on this?(Rogerweb2@msn.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.255.227 (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As Thomprod wrote above, that's tremolo or reiteration. I would describe the last example you give ("4 8th notes followed by a single slashed half note") as a lazy bit of notation. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Open diamond head note?

What does it mean when a note is written with its head as an open diamond? See, for example, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Range_contrabass.png -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

In that example it refers to playing a harmonic, played by lightly touching the string at certain node points. In Renaissance music they're the same as regular note heads. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Quarter tones

Quarter-tone notation is not standardized. All sorts of different symbols are used, and the ones shown are some of the least common. Moreover, to this day quarter-tones are not commonly used at all in Western music; they are still experimental and likely to remain so.TheScotch 09:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the "quarter tone" accidentals (a bit of a misnomer) should show examples of a few of the more common types. — Gwalla | Talk 22:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The article currently shows just one notation and gives us the distinct impression that this particular notation is the standard notation. Not only is it not the standard notation (there is none), but it happens to be one of the more rare notations. TheScotch (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just improved the section, but I'm unable to provide illustrations. TheScotch (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Gardner Read's book Twentieth Century Microtonal Notation goes into this topic (and notation of further microtonal divisions) in detail. There is a lot of variation here, though the system shown here appears to be the most common. I don't really have the means to make acceptable graphics for the various other accidentals. Incidentally, Unicode's code charts have small versions of the sharp and flat with a small conjoined digit 4 above as the "representative glyphs" for quarter tone sharp and flat, which don't seem to be attested anywhere else. I've asked on the Unicode forum but haven't received any response yet. — Gwalla | Talk 18:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Lots more notation...

I have been a music composer for almost 8 years now, and to be quite honest, there is a lot missing in this article. What about repeats, different styles of charts, the history of notation (which is what this article should be called) and so much more? I'll be working on that. CHRISTismyROCK83 (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds excellent. I'm looking forward to seeing it. However, this article is not meant to be historical, it only is meant to cover modern (i.e. current) musical symbols. For history and non-current notation, see Musical notation and various articles in category:Musical notation. – jaksmata 14:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As regards "modern" music notation, this article still lacks a huge amount of information. If it's going to cover modern notation, then it needs to take into account the various notations which have come into existence since 1950, many of which have achieved standard usage in avant garde and even mainstream modern scores. Even a quick flip through Kurt Stone's Music Notation in the Twentieth Century will give some idea of how much is missing, and his is just one of dozens (at least) books on the subject.
There is a good deal of inconsistency in the article if the goal is, indeed, to present "modern", or even modern traditional notation. For example, you will be hard-pressed to find anyone under 90 years old who calls a brace an "accolade". And while "appogiatura" and "accaccatura" are indeed old traditional terms for "grace notes", the terms refer to a much more complex historical form and usage of ornamentation than that described. If you don't want to go into "history" in this article, then keep in mind that, unless one is striving for period performances of 18th or early 19th century music, in modern notation these terms are almost never used -- grace notes are just called "grace notes".
Also, I wonder about the advisibility of including the "Instrument specific notation" section here. That is a HUGE subject, and even the two entries given (guitar and piano) haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the specialized notation for those instruments. A subsection on percussion notation alone could easily be longer than the entire current article.

As far as filling in some gaps in the traditional notation covered, I would recommend as the best single source, Gardner Read's Music Notation: A Manual of modern Practice. Written in the 1960's and updated in the 70s, Read pretty much codified Western notational practice up to that point, and organized it into a logical sequence which left very little out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Brackets

Under accolade/brace, would it be accurate to add an image of a bracket, which is similar to a brace but used to indicate different instruments being played? http://www.arpegemusic.com/manual34/glossary.htm#Brace%20or%20Bracket —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.253.31 (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added an entry for bracket. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

How about some illustrations?

File:Accolade.svg
File:Music-quarternote.png

This article would be far more useful if there was an actual picture of each notational symbol, rather than just a verbal description. I see a few of these, but very few. Surely these cant be that difficult to locate? Seems like someone with a notation font could dash off most of them in a few minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

There must be something wrong with your view of this article – it has illustrations for almost every term. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see any illustrations for most of the symbols, however, I've noticed that a few of those that I do see are showing up as dark grey on black, making them very difficult to discern. Can the colors be redone so that they show up better? Is it possible that there are other illustrations present that are rendering as even more illegible combinations (e.g., black on black)?

I note that these odd color schemes are connected with "SVG" graphics. Perhaps these could be converted to JPG or GIF or some other standard format that renders pretty much the same on any system/browser?

Some examples for reference:

I see no illustrations under the "lines" section, except for the "accolade" entry, where I see the clefs and lines as dark grey on black, but no brace is visible. (BTW, in 40 years in music at all levels I've never seen or heard a brace refered to as an "accolade" outside of an occasional old 19th-century theory book.)
Clefs, nada.
Notes, nada.
Rests, nothing except for the "multi-measure rest" which shows staff lines (grey on black) but no symbol.
Breaks, nada.
Common accidentals, nada.
Key signitures -- yes, these show up as black on a white background, which is the standard I'd recommend for most, if not all of the other symbols. I note that these illustrations are in PNG format, so that might be another possible good choice for the rest of the symbols.
Quartertones -- nothing. Time signitures -- only the 6/8 drum example shows up (black on white).
Nothing else shows up until the "tremolos" section.
Past that, nothing until the "pedal marks" under the piano section, and there only the "con sordino/senza sordino" entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Weird, what browser are you using? I've looked at it on Mozilla, Chrome, and IE and it looks just fine to me. — Gwalla | Talk 05:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote above and confirming Gwalla's remark – here, under Windows XP with Firefox, Chrome, IE, all illustrations, SVG or PNG, look fine. (I've put one of each at the top right-hand edge of this section.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Dotted bar line?

The illustration for dotted bar line (File:Music-dottedbar.svg), shows the bar broken into dashes. I assume the four dots dividing the measures in [1] are the same symbol? Would it not be better to show the two variations (doted and dashed?) in the illustration? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Which additional illustration do you suggest? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Compound Time Signatures Not Always Divided into groups of Three

'Specific time – compound time signatures The bottom number represents the note value of the subdivisions of the basic pulse of the music (in this case the 8 represents the quaver or eighth-note). The top number indicates how many of these subdivisions appear in each measure. To derive the unit of the basic pulse in compound meters, double this value and add a dot, and divide the top number by 3 to determine how many of these pulses there are each measure. This example announces that each measure is the equivalent length of two dotted crotchets (dotted quarter-notes). You would pronounce this as "Six Eight Time."'

This paragragh, which is in the "Time Signatures" section, seems to assume that all compound time signatures have the beat divided into groups of three. (The example was 6/8) I think it is also possible to have compound time signatures which are not divided into groups of three. Consider a 15/16 time divided into three groups of five. Also, 7/8 time (just one example) is usually divided into smaller groups, such as 3+2+2 or 4+3. I am not sure if this is technically considered a compound time signature, but, if it is, I think this should be adressed too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.155.190 (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You are correct about divisions of beats other than thirds, though this is rather recherché (it is discussed, amongst other places, in the article on quintuple meter). If we really wanted to bury the reader under an avalanche of trivia, though, we should mention certain 19th-century theorists who pronounced 2/4, 3/4, and 4/4 compound meters whenever the beat subdivisions reached sixteenth notes (that is, whenever the beat was divided at any level smaller than half). The other situation you mention, with comparatively fast "uneven" meters, may sometimes be described as "compound meter", though I have never seen this myself. It is certainly true that the so-called aksak meters are treated by their practitioners (and therefore also by some theorists) in just that way. For example, the 2+2+2+3 pattern of the Balkan Dajčovo rhythm (the one actually called "aksak" in the Turkish usul system), usually transcribed in 9/8 time, is performed with four beats to the bar, the last beat being half again as long as each of the other three. Such subtleties, however, are not covered by the usual definition of compound meter, and to insist on describing 9/8 as "compound quadruple meter" as well as "compound triple meter" would certainly confuse the uninitiated, though there may be a place to mention that such considerations exist, and then supply a link to the articles where they are discussed. Keep in mind, also, that this is an article on musical symbols. There is a main article, "Time signatures", linked at the head of the section. That is a more appropriate place to look for a more ample discussion of these matters.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Edited Dynamics

The bottom part of that section was unclear, or written by somebody with no understanding of Italian grammar. Being Italian, I fixed that, but I don't know how to properly fix the formatting: as is now it's ugly. Please help? - Orlando Riccardo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.13.79 (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Double b symbol is wrong

THe two b's must touch each other. --haraldmmueller 06:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldmmueller (talk • contribs)

Piano fingering

Some early 20thC piano tutors use the "English" notation for fingering: + = thumb, 1 = index, 2 = middle, 3 = ring and 4 = little. Most confusing when you come across it! I'll see if I can dig out a citation or example before adding it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ghost notes?

Is there any reason that ghost notes aren't on here, or was it just a fluke? --Mattkenn3 ^talk 17:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably a fluke or an oversight. Go ahead and add a bit about them if you want. – jaksmata 14:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I added "Ghost note" to the article. Dagtorfleson (talk) 11:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

mp and mf verbiage

Verbiage for "mp"

If "mp" means, as presently given in the article, "Literally, half as soft as piano", then in the ordering of the dynamics symbols would be "pp", "mp", and then "P" because, as given by the verbiage, "mp" is half as soft as "P". "mp" is in fact louder than "p" so perhaps the verbiage for "mp" might be "louder than piano by half of piano".

PeterEdits (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

But, Peter, is mp “half as soft”? I mean is it "half"? I don't believe so. And I don't think it is that precise -- in other words there is a bit of a range for all these dynamics, and from instrument to instrument. I think mp is defined as "fairly soft" or "moderately soft". I think we should lose the math fraction. Dagtorfleson (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Quite so. The Italian word mezzo can mean "half", but it also is used to mean "partly", "moderately", or "mid", as in mezzo e mezzo (betwixt and between) or mezzogiorno (midday, noon). I am no expert in the language, but I believe that, in order to specify "exactly half" in the mathematical sense, the expression would be la metà rather than mezzo. Dagtorfleson is correct. In this context of musical dynamics, mp means "moderately soft" and mf means "moderately loud".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

So I changed the definition to use the word "moderately". Dagtorfleson (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Double Flat

This section/comments are in reference to a recent change I reverted in this article (here). This is the message I left in the anon's page: " Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit, but not because I do not agree. Rather, it was because your change relates to a disputed issue. Instead of simply changing the article, I urge you to explain your case in the article's Talk Page, supported with (WP:RS) reliable sources, even before making the change. In the edits summary, then, make reference to your comments in the Talk page. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you!" Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 15:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Forte-fortissimo or fortississimo, improper Italian?

Rather than fortississimo, I've heard of fff being referred to as forte-fortissimo (and ppp as piano-pianissimo). Are both namings correct?

Also to point out, in Italian -issimo (-issima, ...) is not a comparative (like -er in English) but a superlative (like -est in English). So pianississimo would translate as softestest rather than softerer. (In fact, that's an emphasised superlative, like beyond comparison: la piu bella = the most beautiful, bellissima = beyond beautiful, excessively beautiful, or something like that) Heimdall 06:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heimdall1973 (talk • contribs)

I've just had a quick look at my theory book and it shows "Fortissimo ff or fff ... Very loud" and the corresponding "Pianissimo pp or ppp ... Very softly".^[1] So it would appear that both "fortississimo" and "forte-fortissimo" are unofficial terms. Personally I have heard the latter but not the former, possibly because it is easier for anglophones to say and hear. I think it is fair to point out that musical terminology may be based upon Italian, but is not necessarily a precise grammatical use of the language. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Other books seem to agree with this usage. Bloom under "f" has "Progressively louder dynamics are marked ff, fff etc" and has entries for both "forte" and "fortissmo" but nothing else.^[2] Kennedy also only has entries for "forte" and "fortissimo" and under "f" says: "...hence degrees of increasing loudness, ff (fortissimo) and fff (sometimes more)".^[3] Finally Westrup & Harrison also only has entries for "forte" and "fortissimo" but neither in those entries nor in "f" mention the possibility of "fff".^[4] Please note however that my experience and sources are UK based, US standards may differ. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course "fortississimo" is not proper Italian, and it's to be expected that many reference works avoid using it, but some general dictionaries list it: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fortississimo and it can be used in Scrabble: https://1word.ws/fortississimo. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, the online OED (subscription or UK library membership required) also doesn't list either "forte-fortissimo" or "fortississimo". Perhaps it is a trans-atlantic thing, Merriam-Webster uses US English. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

References

^ Rudiments and Theory of Music Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music, London 1958. General Terms. (pp 125 and 129)
^ Bloom, Eric (1971), Westrup, Sir Jack (ed.), Dictionary of Music (fifth ed.), Dent (Everyman's Reference Library)
^ Kennedy, Michael (1985), The Oxford Dictionary of Music, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-311333-3
^ Westrup, Sir Jack; Harrison, F Ll (1984), Wilson, Conrad (ed.), Collins Encyclopedia of Music (revised ed.), Chancellor Press, ISBN 0-907486-50-9

half bend or full bend symbol is miss

it is use mostly in guitar scores. also contain long vibrato short vibrato Wiuser4711 (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Are there any pictures of bending symbols on Commons? Further, there doesn't seem to be a universal standard notation for the various bends (immediate, bend & release, prebend & release, slight bend, half-step bend, whole-step bend). I also think that such illustrations may be outside the scope of this article; maybe it could be incorporated into String bending which could then be referred to in this article, similar to the link there to fingerpicking. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

here are some bends that are used in guitar tab notation and how they look in normal notation. singing use lots of bend too https://www.guitarinstructor.com/pdf/TabNotationLegend.pdf Wiuser4711 (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of musical symbols. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202121802/http://www.decodeunicode.org/u%2B007B to http://www.decodeunicode.org/u%2B007B

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Tied note with a dot

In piano music what is the meaning of a tied note that also has a dot over it? The two symbols seem to be contradictory.Troother (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You mean a note tied to a second note which has a staccato mark? That means the second note is as short as possible. If both notes under the tie have staccato marks, that's different. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to see examples of both. They strike me indeed as contradictory and confusing, and could be notated differently, I think. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this is not a tie, but a slur. An example is the last "card" on this page (you must show all, e.g. by selecting "Showing 100" at the bottom). The explanation there is for strings (violin), but this is also somtimes used for piano - it means a sort of portato.

Figure 8 on this page shows the same situation, just with 3 notes. --User:Haraldmmueller 07:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank your for those, although I'd preferred examples from actual scores, not made-up illustrations. I especially question the accuracy and authority of the first (it contains many inaccuracies). At the second URL, I maintain that either writing marcato or using its standard symbol is clearer and more common. Anyway, it's not clear what User:Troother wants to have done. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok - here are a bucket of examples: Peter and the Wolf, p.78 of the Russian score in the Petrucci library. I guessed that Prokofiev might have this, but it was only at the very end that I stumbled over them ... I let others look for three or more (which, of course, cannot be confused with ties) - but Chopin might have some ... --User:Haraldmmueller 13:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

That Prokofiev example must have slipped my mind – thank you for that. On checking my copy, I noticed that the flute and clarinet on top of that page are not notated like that, which suggests that these could be indeed bowing instructions, as suggested by the "card" in your first link (cram.com). In this case, the intent is probably to smooth the transition from the preceding pizzicato to arco – I suppose it's quite difficult to alternate pizz. and arco at that speed. You can see and hear that part here – after the ad :-( BTW, there is also some weird notation two pages earlier, bottom of p. 76, where the violas are asked to play a series of staccato quavers separated by rests but linked by ties. WTF? Going back to the original question, In piano music ... – I still think that doesn't exist, or if it does, it's nonsense. Grüße, Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, notation is sometimes just a "hint to what the composer might have thought," it seems - here is an example from a gigue by J.Rheinberger - what is the difference, in this organ(!) part, between the slurs over pauses and the staccato-slurred dotted notes? - it can only be one of "the right feeling" - actually, I play the slurred ones more legato than the staccato-slurred ones, because it sounds more logical. But I do not know what Mr. Rheinberger really wanted me to do ... --User:Haraldmmueller 16:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Dash Notation

I was in search for the "dash notation" in the list of musical symbols here, as explained Chord_chart. Is it possible to list, at least a quarter dash note in the table and link it to that page? I know it's not an official musical symbol, but for practical/teaching purpose I believe it is good to list it in the table, as I'm sure there are more people like me who did not know what it meant and came to this page to no avail. :) Luckily I am pretty stubborn and search long enouigh to find the meaning behind it EthemD (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Alternative trill notation?

I've seen trills denoted as a horizontal squiggle, similar to the Glissando, but there is no corresponding picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:7000:5967:4903:F495:D93E:CBDA (talk) 23:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean like the upper mordent, which is illustrated here? A longer version of this mark is commonly usedas an extension of the tr sign. Can you point to examples where it is used separately?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, the text says "When followed by a wavy horizontal line, this symbol indicates an extended, or running, trill"; but yes, a picture might be nice. --User:Haraldmmueller 12:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Spoken word - WL

Not wanting to revert - still: Spoken word is more and something different (a "form of art") than some (or even many) spoken words in the course of a musical piece. The current WL, to me, looks like WP:OR - whereas just telling readers that x marks are used for spoken words (or, rather, syllables) is plain knowledge about musical notation. --User:Haraldmmueller 16:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Would "parts where speech is used" be better? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

No (I'd say). Think of a score where a choir should shout a single "Ha!" - you would notate this with an x; but I would never say that that was "speech" - would you? --User:Haraldmmueller 16:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

True, but then it's hardly a word either! ;-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is what Elaine Gould says in "Behind Bars", p.457: Under the heading "Spoken text in rhythm" she says "Use crossed noteheads to indicate spoken text ...". Later, on p. 458, she uses the word "speech", in contrast with "singing", in the heading "Styles between speech and singing." So, I would prefer "spoken text", with (hesitatingly) "speech" as a second choice. --User:Haraldmmueller 16:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I was the one who linked "spoken word" but am not married to that change. I have reverted back to how Jerome Kohl put it. Cheers, and carry on... Just plain Bill (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Missing: m.d. and m.g.

Busy learning flight of the bumble bee, have m.d and m.g (I think it's got something to do with crossing hands in piano), but I'd like to know exactly what they mean. Also if someone is thinking of responding that "That's specific to piano" I'd argue that ALL instrument notation should be on this page initially, and if the page gets too big THEN can start thinking of splitting it.

m.d. = "main droite" = right hand; m.g. = "main gauche" = left hand. —Wahoofive (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, in fact I saw m.s. and m.d. recently (Bach BWV 825?) at the time I didn't know what m.s. meant, but of course it's mano (or Latin manus or manu, ablative) sinistra Fuficius Fango (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove Longa (Quadruple Note) and Maxima (Octuple Note)?

Assuming this page is best used as a list of modern music notation, my understanding is that the Longa/Maxima haven't really been in use since 16th century. What does everyone think about removing them from here, but leaving them on Note value?

Meekohi (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The article starts "Musical symbols are marks and symbols used since about the 13th century", so your premise is wrong. The marks may still be used in reproductions of early music, so it's best to retain them so that readers can find out what they are. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Martin. Just because the average jazz musician is unlikely to find any use for them is no reason to deprive readers with other musical interests from being able to find out about them. On a side note, I was a little startled to learn that the lead says "used since about the 13th century", so I thought I had better have a closer look at the article. Sure enough, the very first thing discussed, under "Lines", is the staff, and by the 13th century the staff had been in use for at least three centuries, in one form or another. A little later comes "clefs", for which the same is true. It is of course true that symbols for discrete durational values have only been in use since the 13th century, but even the neumes starting in the 9th century represent pitches, if at first only vaguely. Perhaps that opening sentence needs to be brought "back to date", so to speak.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

To do?

I've recently done a whole lot of editing of this article, trying to remove off-topic, confusing, or redundant statements, and generally trying to clarify. There's a lot more that could be done, some of which is outside my abilities or level of expertise, or might be debatable. My suggestions:

- diagrams of clefs should maybe show them at the left of the staff, as they would appear at the beginning of a piece

- maybe more diagrams of beamed notes

- I replaced the "tie" diagram - the slur diagrams use a curved line that doesn't change thickness (the way a slur/tie would)

- maybe more diagrams of tuplets. With time signatures to better show how they line up?

- should articulations be shown with both "stem up" notes and "stem down" notes?

- should ornaments be shown in a diagram instead of described in words? A mordent could be shown as two thirty-second notes and a dotted eighth, e.g.

- I think the mordent and inverted mordent definitions are mixed up - doesn't the mordent use the lower auxiliary note?

- 8va & 15ma could be shown below also (instead of just described)

- separate diagrams for the simile marks, maybe showing them in context

- diagrams of an actual section of music to illustrate D.C. & D.S. (al coda and al fine)

This is all very subjective, but this is all stuff I'd consider doing next. - Special-T (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed your edits during the last few days, and while I haven't inspected them closely, they seem to be welcome improvements. As to the above "to do": I think too much detail is better avoided here if there are dedicated articles (tuplets, D.C./D.S.). If an item deserves a more elaborate treatment, it may be time to write an article about it. Mordent is a difficult and confusing subject, only partly explained at our article. There's a comprehensive treatise, may too detailed, at de:Pralltriller. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm all for limiting the amount of (usually confusing) detail. That seems to be one of the biggest problems with articles, especially general articles like this one. - Special-T (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Piano: una corda

I've played piano for over 40 years and have never once seen the graphic that represents a violin mute used to indicate una corda. I can imagine that it may have been used in individual cases, but it's certainly uncommon enough that it should not be what people find when they search for piano notation.

In fact, it's much more likely for a pianist to encounter the word "sordini" used to refer to the dampers - i.e. the right pedal, not the left - since Beethoven did that sometimes.

The correct notation for una corda and tre corde in piano music is (99% of the time) to print those words literally (or an abbreviation of them). The other 1% of cases use whatever ad hoc notation a composer has come up with, hopefully unambiguous. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I've decided to remove the violin-mute-style sign from the "Piano" section, since no one has stood up for its inclusion. TooManyFingers (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"Neutral clef" graphic

I'm not a percussion player. Where the neutral clef is listed, the graphical representation shows two short thick lines followed by an un-filled rectangular box. Is the neutral clef all of that taken together? Or is it two thick lines OR an unfilled rectangle? If it's an either/or situation, it would be nice to have some indication of that. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

According to Drum kit, the two symbols are alternatives – either can be used. On the other hand, Percussion notation doesn't mention the unfilled rectangle. Maybe the uploader, User:RicHard-59, can explain it better. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Cannot help on matter. Image is from time I was learning Inkscape. Beside it is derivate of File:Music-neutralclef.svg.

Those are two separate versions of the neutral clef (i.e., the clef can be either one; the clef symbol is not both of them together). My Kurt Stone notation book only shows the parallel-thick-bars version, but Finale (the music notation software) has both as choices when assigning a clef. - Special-T (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Lack of 2 dynamic levels

Hello! I noticed that the article doesn't include fp (fortepiano) or sfp (i don't know what this is called). Is there a reason why there are left out? I have a guess and that's because they do the same thing as sfz (sforzando). ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Undocumented marking in Scarbo

At the first ppp in the Scarbo movement of Gaspard de la Nuit (no measure number available, but a little over one minute in), there are markings above and below bar lines. They're like three very short ties which, however, do not tie to any notes. Or to describe them another way, if you enter three left parentheses and rotate that block of text 90 degrees clockwise, that's centered above each bar line; and centered below each bar line are the original three parentheses rotated counterclockwise instead. I came to this page to learn what they mean, but they don't appear to be present. Here's a link to the performance-synched score near that point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7oJqi52d2I&t=95s Tosiaan (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

For a full explanation of all signs, WP is of course not sufficient; you should instead look into Elaine Gould's "Behind Bars". This sign means "Laissez vibrer" - it means, in general, not to damp an instrument that naturally resonates. Gould recommends to use standard Ped. signs for piano music, but gives an example for l.v. signs on p.73. --User:Haraldmmueller 11:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Pedal markings

First there was a Unicode graphic. Some systems might not display it, I get that. But now there's a tricky explanation and a forest of parentheses and guillemets and a Greek letter. There's certainly not much reason to use guillemets here - the fact that they're non-standard in English makes them stand out as if they themselves were an important piece of information, so they don't serve to clarify anything.

I'll try to think of a way to eliminate the confusing (and proliferating) mess that has so far been the result of losing that Unicode graphic (which I agree had to go, if people can't see it). TooManyFingers (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Rachmaninoff Prelude in C Sharp Minor

In this piece, page five, there’s a [ between chords and an octave played by the same hand, what is this? 67.170.189.52 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Ask this at WP:Reference Desk/Entertainment ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not a standard notation, but presumably here he means he realizes you can't play such a huge stretch with one hand so you're presumably supposed to treat the lower octaves like grace notes. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The passage being discussed is shown at right:

Note that this is not for piano duet but there are two staves for each hand of one player.

—Wahoofive (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Tie

The definition does specify whether the line would become a slur if there were intervening notes between the two notes of the same pitch. Troother (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear - it's a stretch to interpret the phrase "two notes of the same pitch" to include the situation where there's a different pitch in between them. Adjacent notes changing pitch obviously can't be played as a single note. - Special-T (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The answer to this would be a tie becomes a slur if there are different pitched notes in between since it is no longer connecting two notes of the same pitch. IF the notes changing pitch were in a different "voice" than the notes that are tied then it's still a tie. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Dynamics indicate "attitude"

This was edited and, in my view justifiably, reverted. The comment on the change is:

It is a misconception that dynamic markings represent loudness/volume changes. Dynamic markings mark the attitude of playing which will affect the volume but also the timbre of the instrument. There is a physiology at play which also affects the attack of notes, duration, and harmonic content the instrument produces. The difference in MP and MF for example are not so much a change in volume but more in attack.

Yes, all musicians and sound font engineers know that dynamics are not only about volume. But the word "intensity" captures this. For more changes to the explanation, it would really be interesting to have a source that describes this succinctly, and also in detail; and moreover add that to the Dynamics (music) article. User:Haraldmmueller 06:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

8vb & 15mb

There's a note in that section stating that there's no such thing as "8vb" or "15mb". A recent edit added those symbols with what looks like a solid ref. I don't have that book, so someone else maybe take a look and make the call. - Special-T (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Well that note is a complete lie as I know for sure that 8vb exists (I usually see it used in music). I dunno where they got the information that they don't exist but they are a thing. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Heck it's even in the Meriam Webster dictionary seen here. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The note said that they don't exist and to check the talk page for an explanation. I looked through the archive and saw nothing mentioning that 15mb doesn't exist (and it probably does considering there's an HTML character for it). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, that Merriam Webster link has the term (which is not in contention), but not the symbol "8vb" (which is in contention). I've seen it in music as well, but I'm no notation expert. My old Kurt Stone notation book lists "8 basso" as the correct notation, but I don't know if I've ever seen that. - Special-T (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Ya I've never seen it written as "8 basso". Given the sheer amount of stuff relating to 8vb as a symbol it most likely does exist. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

It most likely does exist, but that's WP:OR on our part. I'm bringing this up on this talk page to see if someone here has a good reference. - Special-T (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes that is true. I wonder if showing a piece of music using it would count or if it would still be OR. Regardless, that hidden note wasn't all that helpful since I didn't see a talk page discussion mentioning 15mb not being a thing. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The (English-language) reference for music notation, Elaine Gould's "Behind Bars", says there is no 8vb and 15mb, on page 28: https://www.hmmueller.de/Diagrams_x560/20230525_085522.jpg

And Anthony Donato, Preparing Music Manuscript does, as far as I can see it from a limited online scan, not have 8vb in it; rather, it says on p.43 "The same signs are used for transpositions one or two octaves lower by placing them below the staff", and then has a picture that clearly uses 8va (incidentally, with the va raised). So this is, IMO, a wrong(ly used) reference in this article. User:Haraldmmueller 07:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

15mb?

In which musical piece has the 15mb symbol been used? I don't know anyone. Μεγάλος Δεξιοτέχνης (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

No I havent Gavinator2015 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The 15mb symbol exists, but is extremely rare. It has been used in "The Tides of Manaunaun" by Henry Cowell, for the C0 in William Kraft: Encounters II for solo tuba (contributed by Tinkham); and for C0 for tuba in William Bolcom: *Piano Concerto (1976). Χιονάκι (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)