Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music theory/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory. 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

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Several of the comments above (1) wonder whether the WikiProject Music theory is still alive and (2) complain about the present state of several articles on music theory. Hoping that the aswer to (1) is positive and that the projet is living and well, I'd like to call to help for the reviewing of several articles. To this end, I opened several sandbox pages, described below. The very principle of such pages has been contested, e.g. by Olorulus on the talk page of Tonality. I am open to such criticism, yet I still believe that sandbox pages are a viable way to improve things.

• User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Music_theory is a commented version of the Music theory page. It may not have been a very good idea, but it helped me identify one of the main problems of the page itself, namely conflicting views on what counts as "music theory" and whether there might have existed a prehistoric, unwritten theory. See also Talk:Music_theory about this. Anyway, this prompted me to open the following page:
• User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Western_music_theory is a page concerned with Western theory exclusively (there exists a similar page in the French speaking Wikipedia), in order to avoid the problems mentioned above: a page on Western theory does not really need to raise the question of prehistoric theory; it may therefore leave the other page freer to do so. I reckon however that this does not remove the difficulty of defining what is "music theory", at which the page sort of got stuck.
• User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Tonality is intended to become an alternative to the existing Tonality page. In its present state, I think it proposes a satisfying programme of what the page could become, but many of the sections remain to be written.
• User:Hucbald.SaintAmand/Consonance_and_dissonance is now pending. Some of it has found its way in the present Consonance_and_dissonance page which, however, in my opinion remains unsatisfactory on several points. But I found it useless, for the time being, to further develop this page.

All these pages need the help from the participants to the Project Music theory. None of them is my personal property; if they are linked to my own page, it merely is that I didn't find another way to create them. Up to now, however, participation has been rather sporadic. I am very grateful to those who participated, even those with whom I have been in disagreement.

Let me add that these pages do not necessarily need to replace the existing ones. If the tables of content are reasonably similar, it may be a simple thing to modify sections of the existing pages by adding information coming from the sandbox pages. Or else, the existing pages may be reorganized according to the suggestions of the sandbox pages. But I feel it somewhat difficult to go on arguing on the existing pages and their talk pages, before we reached some sort of consensus about what we would like to achieve. Note that each of the sandbox pages described here has its own talk page for further discussions.

Thanks for your help. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm willing to assist, but I'm not in total agreement with some of the assumptions in your sandbox articles. I have no problem with the sandbox process in principle, as long as the relevant page histories are checked for any changes that might be worth integrating. Tony (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC) PS You clearly speak French: could you briefly comment on the state of the field on fr.WP, by comparison with en.WP? Tony (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I think there are active members here who are willing to help. This has never been a large vibrant project since I started it in 2008. I wish there were more members; particularly editors with some expertise in this area. I am no longer involved much with this project as I have a stronger interest in writing opera related articles. As for your article creations, why not just be bold and make the edits yourself. As long as they are properly referenced there shouldn't be much push back, and probably lots of thank yous headed your way. I don't think having competing articles in user space is a good idea.4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Several answers:

• The only interesting thing about the fr.WP article Théorie de la musique occidentale is that it exists. There is also an article Théorie de la musique. Both are extremely short and do not really speak of theory. But what seemed interesting to me was to have separate articles for Theory in general and Western Theory in particular, and I got the idea from the fr.WP. I may use the en.WP project to rewrite the French article.
• TONY, that you are not in agreement with some of the present assumptions can but interest me: don't hesitate to discuss and/or change what you don't like – and, above all, let's discuss the disagreements: that's the best way to progress.
• 4meter4, there are several reasons why I do not feel like making the edits myself in the original article. I don't really have the time, nor the energy, especially if that means struggling against reverts that would soon follow. I feel that the article Music theory needs a complete reorganization, which deserves some preparation in a sandbox: I thought better to work together to this end, and to reach some sort of consensus before modifying (or, probably, drastically rewriting) the existing article. The same is true, to a lesser extent perhaps, of the Tonality article.
• I came here prompted by a discussion on SMT Discuss, where one can see that the reluctance of SMT members has been caused by "revert wars". My "sandbox approach" was conceived as a possible way to bypass this difficulty. But it doesn't make sense if we do not work together. If there is no collaboration to my sandbox pages, I might indeed as well make the edits myself; but I don't believe that possible at this point.
• The SMT discussion does refer to some WP articles being "more complete than can be found in any other published source"; some indeed begin to be referenced on the link pages of academic Music departments. My mistake, however, may have been to attack such important, central articles as Music theory and Tonality. We should perhaps better begin with more peripheral articles. (I have done some work on Tetrachord, recently, and I think that the worst of it has now been removed.) But that too would need discussion.

In short, I can only repeat my request for help, on all these points. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that there are only three or four editors currently active on each of these pages has in some cases created another problem, which is that a single editor can effectively prevent consensus on specific issues. I think this is what Hucbald is referring to about "revert wars", and so 4meter4's suggestion to "be bold" is more likely to provoke "pushback" than "thankyous". A larger number of voices would facilitate consensus on issues that currently are stalemated. It is precisely this problem that has prompted me to withdraw temporarily from the discussion of these revisions, though I do intend to return to these debates if and when the dust settles.—Jerome Kohl (talk)

Indeed, Jerome Kohl, and this all well considered is the very sense of my call for help: I cannot and I won't go on without some collaboration. Which does not mean that I'll abandon the whole idea, but that like you I'll probably temporarily withdraw. "Temporarily" may become rather long, however, if there is no reaction. We (if you allow me to count you with me) don't need advices, we need collaboration. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The irony is that if more people interested in music theory became part of this project, then there would be enough people to argue against the reverters. In any case, even if this project is small, there are enough of us to try to move forward. Generally I suggest moving incrementally, gaining the confidence of others to take bolder steps. There is one occasion where I re-wrote an entire article in my sandbox, then blanked the existing article and substituted my version; no one complained. That article was Heinrich Schenker. Perhaps if we could take a organized approach to redoing the music theory article that might work. - kosboot (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, and the central music theory article would be a good place to start. I agree with Hucbald that, without collaboration, we cannot make progress with this article or the related ones on harmony, tonality, and so on. If the article on music theory is of no concern to members of this project, then I don't understand what its purpose is at all.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Overleaf, many editors are listed as active. Perhaps one could ping each of them with a standard message asking whether they want their name to be retained on the active list or moved to the inactive list. Tony (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I presume that most really active members, among the 32 listed overleaf, have this page in their watchlist and, therefore, are aware of the present discussion. I'm afraid none of us has the authority to move any of them to the inactive list. Similarly, I consider the articles themselves anonymous: nobody has authority on them. If the Heinrich Schenker article remains as kosboot wrote it some time ago, it is not because of Kosboot himself, but because the article is good (I'd say the same of Schenkerian analysis, by the way, which did undergo some improvement but no important change since now about two years – this is not an invitation to begin destroying it ;–)). One problem with Music theory is that somebody claims to have authority on it (or on its History section) and refuses to consider critics. (That somebody is among our active members and might be reading this: I invite him to join the debate). It is precisely to avoid endless discussions with a self-appointed "owner" that I suggest opening another page on Western Music Theory. But I certainly don't want to pass myself for its owner and, for this reason, I don't want to write it alone. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

(I often state that Wikipedia is a "social encyclopedia" and that one must always approach it in the way one approaches any collaboration, with give-and-take.) Perhaps if someone started to edit the music theory article we could engage this Wikipedian and convince them to approach the topic with greater openness. Personally, I dislike most of the illustrations, many of which seem tangential. - kosboot (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I may have been too agressive in the recent discussions (see Talk:Music_theory and its archives) to be the one to do that with any chance of success, for the time being at least. But I'll gladly join after a while, if the first discussions turn successful. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to join the Music Theory Project! I will add a new section with more detail on my request but for now I would like to say that this Project needs help! I want to help! --Xavier (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello members! I just joined the project and was wondering if we have a userbox? It is an honour to be apart of this project and I hope I can be of some great help! --Xavier (talk) 05:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Project members! I just want to introduce myself as a new member of the project. Woot! My plans are to help on all subjects, giving you my 18 years of experience with music professionally, and of course my years as a youth unprofessionally, span longer.

I can see that this group needs some help as participation may be low, but I want to assure you all that I will be very active on this project. --Xavier (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Xavier, and all, please note that the discussion was rekindled on Talk:Music_theory, in more friendly terms than before. It is there that we need help. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand: Should discussions about WP:MTHEORY not be restricted to the page we are on now? Talk:Music_theory is for discussion about the article itself, not our project WP:MTHEORY.

--Xavier (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Now it makes sense, you are not a member. I maintain my last sentence:

"Talk:Music_theory is for discussion about the article itself, not our project WP:MTHEORY."

--Xavier (talk) 11:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If this project is still active then please respond to this message. I will be a permanent member here and if the project does not have any activity for over a month then I vote to become its organizer. If you are all still out there than great, I hope we can meet up soon! --Xavier (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Xavier, I have been an active member of this project since over two years, and I still am. The list of active members counts 33 names (yours included). This project is "dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage and organization of music theory topics." This can only happen in the individual articles themselves, not here. We might discuss some details of the Music theory here, but I don't think it would be a good idea. You'll find the names of several of us in the Talk:Music_theory page and its archives. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand: Awesome! Glad to here from active members! Hooray! I am so amped to be a part of this project!

--Xavier (talk) 13:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Xavier, I suggest that you begin reading several talk pages: first of all, this one; then several of the pages linked to above. I think that for now we should concentrate on the Music theory article itself — to be discussed in its own talk page rather than here, because many may not often check this page. Note that the Talk:Music_theory page has six pages or Archives, five of which date from 2015, because discussions there have been quite active. You should check that first, then enter the discussion as soon as possible because we need to hear different voices, lest the whole thing reduces to a few monologues. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand: My discussions for now are purely WikiProject related. So, I see no reason to have this particular discussion there. When the time comers to discuss actual Music theory topics, I will begin discussion there. Again, for now, my discussions are purely related to the project itself, hence why I am on the project talk page.

--Xavier (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I want to help as soon as I can and am really excited to discuss music theory with you all! Woot!

--Xavier (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@Xavier enc: But how do you conceive of "the project itself", if it is not about improving WP articles? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think my point was misunderstood but, that is okay. I will be there soon to help. I have another project that is in a desperate situation so the project really needs my attention today. I think by tomorrow I will be ready to participate in theory discussion. You can see the list of projects I'm in on my user page and they are listed by lowest members at the top below the parent, music. Hope all is well!

--Xavier (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The original creator 4meter4 has agreed to make me host. If anyone agrees/disagrees please comment. I am only interested in creating a better project through implementing current project standards for our parent project. You can also see a list of my projects on my user page. I am very active in music projects. If the consensus disagrees I have no problem with that and will continue to help as best as I can! --Xavier (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand that there are important articles to discuss and I will be soon adding to them. For this very reason it can become hard to find the time to take care of project responsibilities, which is why I aim to host. You will find me alleviating this role thus giving you more time to spend on articles. --Xavier (talk) 12:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

If that is not okay with you than I humbly request permission to revamp the project page as it is an extreme eyesore, hard to navigate, and has some unnecessary sub pages. --Xavier (talk) 12:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem in principle, Xavier; but the original creator has no right to "make" you anything. :-) I wonder whether you agree that content is our primary challenge; consistency with the "parent" project seems like the easy bit. Revamp ... can we see what Hucbald, Jerome, et al think? Tony (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tony1: You are correct he does not. Which is why he "agreed" and which is why I am requesting this from the entire community. --Xavier (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

We have to remember who our parent is and that we have a responsibility to that parent. Regular updates with their list of sub projects is one example. --Xavier (talk)

On that note I also understand that there are no leaders on WP (should the question come up). I only want to alleviate the responsibilities of the project while helping to improve articles as a team. --Xavier (talk)

@Xavier enc: Let me second Tony and amplify: none of us, either individually or as a group, has any power to make you "host" of this project; any "agreement" that we may voice would remain without validity. It is up to you to do what you think necessary with this page, and we will react. After a while you may indeed appear as the "host", but that will result from your actions, not our agreement. You are n. 33 in our list of 33 participants. You joined yesterday, and the same is true for most of the projects listed in your page. We won't buy pigs in pokes, if I may say so, but we will certainly gladly approve any improvement that you can bring to this project. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand: Thank you for your thoughts! It is awesome to see activity on the project. With no doubt I will contribute and consider me just a picky coder. ) --Xavier (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There has been long overdue syntax on our project page. For example, our parent template for our banner is about to be deleted! Don't worry, I will be making a new template in my sandbox. For now, the home page looks a thousand times better! --Xavier (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Browsing through the list of FA quality music theory articles – this was easily done, there are only four – I was somewhat surprised to discover that two of them, Johannes Kepler and Leonhard Euler, mention music theory only in passing, or not at all. I don't know much about Kepler's achievements in music theory, but I recently got involved in Euler's writings on music... and I wonder.

Whatever has been said about Euler, he devoted to music only about a dozen (about 500 pages in total) of his more than 800 published writings – I refer here to the Eneström list of his writings. His main achievements are (1) that he considered the possibility of extending just intonation to 7-limit (as one says today) and (2) that he proposed the Tonnetz. One may argue that in both these aspects he was sort of visionary, considering the importance taken today on the one hand by the Tonnetz in neo-Riemannian theory and on the other hand by the extension of tuning systems to 7-limit and higher. But these recent developments did not really depend on a knowledge of Euler. One must consider in addition that Euler's description of just intonation relies heavily on that by Mattheson (General-Baß-Schule). I hardly could add to the existing Euler article, though, because my knowledge is mainly from first-hand reading, i.e. is "original research" (without anything original, though).

I do not question the intrinsic quality of these articles, but I question their importance (and even their quality) for the Music Theory project and, particularly, their position among the top quality and mid importance articles in music theory. This makes me wonder about the meaning of these rankings. The importance, IMO, should be rated not with respect to the article itself, but to its position in the overall project – that is that there should be an evaluation of the importance for music theory. I wonder, for instance, why the C♯ (musical note) article is classified as of High importance (and the only note so classified), while Heinrich Schenker, for instance, is of Unknown importance (but of C quality)!!! I even wonder about the quality rating: can the Euler article be said of quality for the Music theory project, while it does not even mention the De harmoniae veris principiis of 1774, which is the work really presenting the Tonnetz?

Should we not do something about that? Who votes? When? Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your points. A proposal on the WikiProject talkpage, then? Tony (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems however that we first have to know whether quality and importance rankings are on the level of separate projects, or at the level of WP at large. C♯ (musical note) for instance may appear of High importance to some, even if we music theoricians might think otherwise. And Leonhard Euler probably is of importance in general, even if it may not for music theory. What we need first, therefore, is an opinion on this by somebody more knowledgeable on Wikipedia policies. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that we make what ever decisions make best sense to the folks editing these articles than finding "somebody more knowledgeable on Wikipedia policies." inviting a bureaucrat in is sort of like inviting your strong neighbor in to help win a civil war. It is, according to Machiavelli and other knowledgeable people, not a good idea in the long run. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

To my mind, if the person has some connection to music theory (in these cases, authors), I don't think it's right for this project to ignore them. I have seen other pages that rate high to some project but rate medium-to-low for other projects. Kepler and Euler are clearly better known for their mathematical knowledge, but through their writings have a small connection to music. Perhaps it can be noted (on the respective talk pages?) that low ratings from this project indicate that the music theory part of the articles are in need of amplification? - kosboot (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Now that we more or less agree, can anyone tell us how we can change these ratings, for so far as music theory is concerned? As to Euler, I will try and add something to the article about music theory before we vote – I'll do that today. We (I, at least) would also need more information about what is meant by "quality" and "importance". — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

As with other projects, we need to come up with criteria that explains why an article receives a particular rating from this group. I belong to WP:OPERA and they have detailed article assessment guideline: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/Assessment - might we want to start something similar? - kosboot (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

At any rate, I created Leonhard Euler#Music, which might better justify its importance for us. Let's have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/Assessment — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I discovered that almost all that we need to know can be found here and here. We also have a page Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory/Assessment, where our own list of criteria could be added.

If one clicks on any of the figures in the table "Music theory articles by quality and importance", in this Assessment page, one finds interesting things: an article list appears which says which articles are concerned by the figure; this list (at the bottom of the page) gives the importance rating and the quality rating, both with a date. Clicking on the date shows the state of the article at that date, which probably was the time when the rating was decided. It will soon be seen that these versions are quite outdated: the whole certainly is in need of actualization.

Using all this is not that simple, though. And the decision to actualize the assessments in Music theory articles should be a collective one, which in turn raises the question of who is an active member of this project. Comments on all this will be welcome. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The stated parameters allow anyone to assess the quality of an article. There are no guidelines on how to rate the importance of an article. Drawing again from my experience with the opera project (WP:OPERA), people just announce that more assessments need to be done, or that the level of certain articles need to be raised - and some people just go ahead an do them. I'd like to work on the stub articles as well as the unassessed articles. I'd also hope to figure out how to determine the importance of an article. - kosboot (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I wrote in the talk page of the Music theory article a note about which I'd very much like the opinion of all participants to this project. I think indeed that it engages the very purpose of our project as a whole. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why, for example, F-sharp major is called that instead of F♯ major? There's no technical reason for it, as the existence of the redirect indicates. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

See above, where this question has already be discussed. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Citing the guideline WP:WTAF a number of music theorists were deleted from the List of music theorists. I have created a subpage to that page (perhaps I should have placed it here) List of music theorists/Articles Needing Creation so we can see which names need articles. (I tried reverting the deletion and was warned that I was edit-warring. But I want to add that recent criticisms of Wikipedia have point out that it is exactly this kind of deletionism that is a significant problem.) - kosboot (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are the names that were deleted: WikiProject_Music_theory/List_of_music_theorists_needing_creation. Maybe someone can figure out how to put a link on the main page. - kosboot (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I moved it out of mainspace again; it is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music theory/List of music theorists needing creation. VQuakr (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, just to say I've proposed a project Microtonal Music, Tuning, Temperaments and Scales .

It's scope would include everything in the now inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and_Scales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) project,. But it adds "Microtonal Music" to the title. This makes it broader in scope, for instance to include microtonal compositions and composition technique, microtonal chords, microtonal composers, microtonal organizations, microtonal regional and national music, etc etc. The idea is that as a larger project we would get more participation.

If you support the idea please add your name to the #Support section, or if you have any thoughts on it that you want to share, do add your voice to its Discussion section. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Music theory. There's a small dispute at Talk:Cheap Thrills (song)#Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2016 regarding chord progressions and keys. I'm totally unfamiliar with this field, so do you think one of you could take a look at the issue and offer input? Please also see this discussion on my user talk page. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I gave an answer on the Talk:Cheap Thrills (song)#Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2016 page. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Our article on "organic frequencies" - is this at all useful, or is it gibberish? And if it's gibberish, is it at all salvageable? It feels like it's edging on the pseudoscience. DS (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear members of the Project Music theory, the Talk:Music_theory#Cultural globalization? page recently raised questions which I think shoud interest you (or else you should not be here). Please go read them, and do participate in the exchange. Your advice is much needed. Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

My name is Soji (my username CPGACoast -- it's a reference from when I was eleven to my two favorite amusement parks), and I take issue with a lot of the composition sections for songs on this website (if they are even present for an article in the first place). Look at the article for My Life. That is a really musically interesting composition! A repeating modulation between D major and Bb major over a four-chord progression (D - Gm/F - EbM7 - B♭ - A5)? That is so interesting -- it toys with major and minor to the point of frenzy. Will you see any mention of it there? None. "Uptown Girl", a song with several key changes, some abrupt and others sequential, is also void of any musical insight. Look at this article for "Stupid Girl" by Garbage. I wrote almost the entirety of that Composition section on my own about four years ago (you can search the edit history for proof). Is there some subjective insight in it? Yes, but it is rooted in observation of countless other songs and supported by commonly accepted theory, as referred to in the articles it links. I feel like this is what I wish more song articles would follow suit in providing.

I feel like, with music, people are apathetic toward looking into its science, and are more willing to dissect what is more immediately observable or assessable, like the lyrics of a song. Even a song like "Life on Mars" by David Bowie, there is at least some dissection of the song's semantic meaning, and its origins with regards to that, but nothing about how the song builds in terms of musical tension to a soaring Neapolitan chord (C♭M7), which resolves quite surreally to the subdominant key, which then also undergoes several modal shifts, before resolving back to F major. It's a rather notable song... you would think that it wouldn't be left to just sit in mysticism, that its mystery might be dissected -- not for the sake of cold calculation, but so its beauty can be put further into words. There are also songs where error or misinterpretation, due to using sheet music websites as gospel, are taken as undeniable fact: for the song "Hand in Glove" by The Smiths, you'll notice under Composition that there is a disclaimer explaining how the transcription of the song transposes the song to E minor. That's because the chords were initially written as though the song were in this key, even though the recording implies F blues and G minor. I had to concede for the article on "Ray of Light" by Madonna, which states that the chords B and E are in the (primarily) B♭ major song. (The song's vocal range also ignores Madge's B♭₅ belt that comes during the outro, which, as far as I can tell, is the highest note she's ever meticulously sung.) We don't need to source a mathematical equation, so why should we need to source musical analysis when an observant expert can very easily correct misinformation?

I feel like there is a tendency to treat music as incapable of interpretation, which is just not true. Music is rooted in acoustics, which is not a pseudoscience by any measure. I've been lucky enough to have the wherewithal to study the nature of music on my own, through my own industry and investigation, but I recognize that not everyone might have that or be predisposed to that, or have that opportunity to do so on their own. It only takes an open and observant ear to analyze a song's composition and arrangement, and I feel like many musicians, as well as people with just a general curiosity, could use analyses like the one I provided for the Garbage song to their advantage. I just feel like we shouldn't be afraid of depth with these articles -- not just theory, but depth: what does this song mean to you, and how does that resonate through the music? How does the sonic content of the song impact you in ways that another song wouldn't? Of course we can't make it too personal, but I see no wrong in expanding upon the context that the music creates. We do that about literature, yes? Or paintings? So why not music? Let's not just discuss things as dubious as the now-largely-obsolete science around key coloration (there's a whole article, for instance, on Beethoven and C minor -- indeed, what I'm saying very well could apply to classical and jazz pieces too), but subjects that have more nuance and dynamism to them, like modality, how major and minor, which are modalities themselves, can be manipulated spectrally, how the angularity of prime numerical time signatures and phrase lengths can be used to effect (versus a binary or ternary meter), how electronic dance music, namely electropop, likes to emphasize a major key in its melody while emphasizing a minor key in its harmony, etc.; lots of subjects. I'd just like to see more thought put into musical analyses on music articles, namely those of songs. I feel it could really come in handy. --CPGACoast (talk) 06:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Seeing how dormant this WikiProject is, I fear that this comment will have no effect at all. Nevertheless:

Please see Talk:Submediant § Relative minor, concerning Submediant's failure to so much as mention the significance of the relation between the relative major and minor keys. I am not able to boldly go and add it, as my grounding in musical theory is only very basic. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. -- Thnidu (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thnidu: Hi Thnidu, I also feel like this is a problem (I just checked the article and it still fits the description you gave). I would be hopeful for the revitalization of this WikiProject, if it is as dormant as you said it was almost four months ago. Music theory is a great passion of mine, and something I've been blessed to be able to dissect greatly out of my own independent industry, study, and accord. I made a thread below you last night, discussing the inadequacy I perceive in musical analysis of songs on this website. I feel like you might have some things to say, ideas to pose, with regards to that. Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --CPGACoast (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a problem making this comparison for a couple of reasons: (Disclosure: I am a software engineer with quite a few languages under my belt.)

Firstly, the comparison will be lost on most people. Only those who understand what assignment statements in a computer program will understand it. Secondly, there are many computer languages and the semantics of x = y; is specific to each language. For example x = f(y); evaluates a function f() and replaces the value of x with the result but also x = y can be the definition of a macro wherein the meaning, not the content, of x changes.

I like the idea behind the comparison, it's just that computer languages as a collection is probably too muddy to make it very clear. Ttellerx (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)ttellerx

I didn't catch that statement which I don't like at all. Metric modulation is more like a device in language where you construct certain syllables from which a different meaning emerges rather than the apparent meaning (sort of like acronyms which are understandable words as well as abbreviations). There is a word for this technique, but I don't recall it. - kosboot (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that the comparison questioned by Ttellerx is this one:

"This notation is also normally followed by the new tempo in parentheses. This is analogous with the assignment in imperative computer languages: {x = f(x);} ≡ {xnew = f(xold);}"

But a notation of the type = . involves no change of tempo! If the tempo was, say, =120 before the change, it becomes .=120 after the change. It is not the tempo that changes, but the subdivisions of the beat. The , which lasted 0,25 second (1/240 of a minute) before the change, now has a duration of 0,17 second (1/360 of a minute), but the tempo is not changed.

The notation = . means that any note value after the change has a duration of 2/3 the same note value before the change. This could be expressed by something like x_new = 2/3 x_old, which might justify a more general expression of the type x_new = f(x_old), but I doubt that that would make things more understandable. And, obviously, x_new = f(x_old) is of the type x = f(y) (with x = x_old and y = x_new). But why make things simple if they can be made complex?

As to whether such changes are legitimately termed "metric modulations", which seems to be the question raised by kosboot, I have no opinion. I don't think the term is really needed, but it appears to exist, so the existence of the article can be justified. I never used the expression "metric modulation", and I see no reason why I should. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Brianboulton and I have sought to significantly expand, and improve the quality of, the article on Claudio Monteverdi and would be very grateful for any comments at the Peer Review which we have just launched here. Many thanks, Smerus (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Following a very helpful peer review, Brianboulton and I have now resolved to subject the article to an FA candidature, and welcome all and any constructive comment. --Smerus (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a notice about Category:Music theory articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. There might be as few as one page in the category, or zero if someone has removed the expert request tag from the page.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi folks! Having recently joined this project, I note that a lot of the articles currently assessed at Stub-class seem to actually be Start-class or better. A lot of the assessments are years old and the articles have often changed a lot since they were made, so this isn't too surprising. I'm going to go through the Stub-class articles and change their content assessments when it seems merited based on this project's assessment criteria, which will make it easier for newcomers like myself to hone in on the articles that need the most work. Since I'm new to the project and Wikipedia editing in general, feel free to bring it up with me + revert if necessary if any of my assessments seem off-base. Mesocarp (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I'm finished with this. —Mesocarp (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)