Talk:C (musical note)

Trying to find a solution
Thanks for the try KieferSkunk but there were some problems there as well. Scientific pitch notation is the specific name of only one specific form of pitch notation. To my knowledge there are three other forms of pitch notation in use, all of them "scientific" but using different notation to represent the same pitch frequencies. Scientific pitch notation is the one most frequently used which is why it was adopted for this article. I am afraid I am not as familiar with the history/development of the other systems, but to call them non-scientific would be a misnomer as they do use the same pitch frequencies and are rooted in auditory science. It's really just a different labeling system. In order to accurately present that information though, we would have to present charts like the SIN one with the different symbols for the various systems. Otherwise readers might get confused. The problem here though, is finding secondary sources as most of these other systems are used by individual companies in keyboard designs and not adopted within scientific acoustic research. Any ideas or suggestions?Nrswanson (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if the problem is with my use of the term "non-scientifically", we can certainly substitute that with a similar phrase, such as "in other ways". However, you bring up a point that I think merits more work as well - the version before mine puts pretty much all its weight on just one system.  If the other systems are scientifically valid, then I think we need to give them more equal emphasis as well - even if it's just mentioning in a general sense that "other systems exist, but are not in common use with respect to music theory", etc.  I think the main argument in the discussion above, while poorly stated, is that the version you have up there does tend to ignore outright the fact that these other systems exist.  My edit was an attempt to address that issue in a way that didn't overcorrect, but I wonder if we do in fact need to restructure the paragraph altogether.
 * I don't disagree that the "note-octave" system you're using for the basis of the article is the most commonly recognized. I just think that it reads right now as though to exclude all others, which probably isn't what we want to do. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To add on to my thought, if the other systems are not scientifically valid (but rather proprietary systems used by certain keyboard manufacturers), it still bears mentioning that these systems can and have caused confusion among people using the instruments. The fact that Middle C on a Yamaha keyboard may mean "the Nth C key on the keyboard" rather than "the key that generates the C4 note" would very easily confuse someone who doesn't fully understand the difference. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good points and I have changed the intro. What do you think? Also these other systems don't alter "middle C". Whatever note on the keyboard that resonates at a frequency of 261.626 hertz is still middle C in these systems. They just might call that note C3 or C5 instead of C4. Basically they tend to displace the numbering system of SIN by an octave. Make sense?Nrswanson (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For the most part, yes. I've seen some cases where "Middle C" actually refers to a different note than the one accepted in notation, but I think those are pretty rare and non-standard, so we can likely ignore them per WP:N, unless there's some significant coverage of notable cases where this has caused problems.  I'll review your latest draft later, tho - don't have time now, unfortunately. :/ &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your help.Nrswanson (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Had a meeting get cancelled as soon as it started, so I have more time now after all. Looks pretty good - that extra sentence adequately mentions the presence of other systems such that people are aware of them.  I think we could probably find a way to make it flow a little better, since you pretty much say "We're going to use this system", followed in the next paragraph by discussion about how people don't use the system.  In addition, I think it might be bad form to say "For purposes of this article" - if we can phrase it more like "This is the most commonly used system", we can avoid self-referencing the article. :) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points. I am afraid my brain is fried at the moment so I will leave you to it for now.Nrswanson (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Check out this revision. Does that work better?  Aside from re-mentioning "some manufacturers" in a general sense, it shouldn't significantly change the meaning, but IMO it does flow better now, and it doesn't self-reference the article. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 00:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds perfect. Thanks for your help.Nrswanson (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is the scientific scale the wrong way around?
Surely C0 is low and C8 is high (per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_octave_C) - this article has high Cs with low numbers (0, -1). Mrjcleaver (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Digital keyboards again
As per the lengthy discussions above, the current consensus is to describe Middle C in terms of its musical and scientific definition, and to make a general note that it is sometimes labeled differently by different manufacturers. Going into specifics about which manufacturers differ from official Middle C, and how they do so, is unencyclopedic. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 15:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Where would such information go? Or what kind of resource if not an encyclopedia? Leaving it in such vague terms brings up so many questions like "If it's wrong, why does Yamaha do it?" "Hasn't someone told them it's wrong?" "How are we supposed to educate people about the difference if we can't talk about it?"
 * Well, I followed the link to Scientific_pitch_notation and it looks like they had the discussion over there about C3/C4/C5 too, but they give a good tidbit of information as to why. It seems it's due to an unclear MIDI standard which makes sense since digital keyboards are often used for MIDI. It's ironic that I had to learn that about it on that page rather than this one. We should include that here. (By the way, I'm the guy who made the last 2 anonymous edits about the Yamaha keyboard thing.) 64.186.164.125 (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The point isn't that we can't talk about it - it's that if we start listing which manufacturers deviate from the accepted definition of C4/Middle C, the article loses focus and becomes randomized. It may be that we need to be a little more specific in the lead about this, perhaps providing a link to the MIDI article, where a discussion on unclear MIDI standards would be more appropriate. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Check out this revision. Does this adequately address your concerns? &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems weird because it sounds like it's trying to give the C3 notation "equal time". I'm ok with discouraging the use of C3 as middle C. I just want to inform people that Yamaha labels their keyboards C3 even though it is generally accepted that C4 is the way to go, and the reason for the difference is probably due to an unclear MIDI standard. Maybe we can move it to a separate section like in the Scientific_pitch_notation page. We don't have to mention Yamaha; we can say "digital keyboard manufacturers" (although it would help immensely with Google searches and people searching for "yamaha middle c" which is what I searched for). I am not familiar with what kind of content is encyclopedic or not, but I appreciate any kind of help you can give me with trying to get the message out. 64.186.164.125 (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. The version I put up says pretty much what you just said - that different designations exist and are used by some digital equipment based on the MIDI standard.  Is it still missing something important and informative?


 * Generally speaking, encyclopedic content meets the bars set by WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Check out the Five Pillars for probably the most comprehensive look at the core policies, if you have questions about it. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The current wording has the idea, but I kind of wanted to say it in simple, specific, laymen's terms. I guess the keywords I wanted to include were "yamaha" and "c3". I'm not an expert on music, in fact, just 3 weeks ago I didn't know where C was on a piano, but I bought a Yamaha keyboard and was confused by it. I was looking for a something that confirmed I wasn't just seeing things, and also maybe explain why they chose C3. Something that will be good for searches because the results on Google just aren't that helpful right now. For example, something like, "You might see middle C labeled as C3 on some Yamaha keyboards. This is due to blahblah-MIDI-blahblah, but it is generally accepted that C4 is the correct notation for middle C." (Something like the example given for the Western concert flute in the current article). If I hadn't done all this reading, I think all the vague, general terms would have just sounded like white noise to me. 64.186.164.125 (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good point, but I still think it's too specific for this article. There may be dozens of other manufacturers of various instruments, both electronic and not, that call Middle C something other than C4, and to avoid problems with undue weight, we'd either need to include all of them as well, or skirt around it like we're currently doing.  You're understandably interested in clarifying Yamaha's position on this issue, but the question is: Is Yamaha's keyboard so notable for deviating from this standard that they deserve special mention in an article about the musical note itself?  I seriously doubt that.


 * Wikipedia can't really be everything to everyone, unfortunately, nor can this specific article. The new wording works in the issue in such a way that we can link to another article that describes MIDI, which can and should address issues about ambiguity between its scale and the standard musical scale.  The Yamaha keyboard issue might be mentioned in more detail there since it really has more to do with their MIDI implementation than with music theory and science. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 23:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am afraid I have issues with the current edits. Although I suspect 64.186 is correct that a non-standardized practice within manufacturers of MIDI devices is likely the reason for the discrepencies within scientific pitch notation labels, I have never seen a verifiable source ever acknowledge that fact. So I think that conclusion is most likely original research. (I have read an aweful lot of literature on MIDI and MIDI devices) Also, the current changes implye that all MIDI devices use an altered scientific pitch notation system which is incorrect. Many MIDI devices designate C4 as middle C and follow standard SPN practice. Also, I think this whole inclusion of MIDI is off topic and should be avoided.Nrswanson (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I come late to this discussion only because I inadvertently "corrected" an error in a music theory article only to discover it was not wrong but something else on the page was. Digital keyboards aside, as a life-long musician, middle C has always been C3, at least to me. Understand, I have no problem with substituting a more "scientific" designation, but browsing among articles on music I found great inconsistency (and in some cases ambiguity that would be difficult for the reader without inside knowledge to resolve). I would propose that ALL music articles that refer to pitches by letter designation include a statement or a footnote on first use that says "middle C on the piano is C4." I also believe the articles need to be reviewed to verify that the "scientific" designations are being used correctly in all cases. Stirrer (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Tenor C"
I'm a pianist rather than a vocal specialist, but this assertion struck me as odd: "the term Tenor C is sometimes used in vocal music to refer to C5 as it is the highest required note in the standard Tenor repertoire". I don't think I've *ever* seen a tenor line go to a true C5 - it seems like a hell of a stretch, albeit I suppose I've only really had experience of scores suitable for amateur choirs. Can someone give me an example? Is there also scope for a brief explanation of notation here, given that a tenor part written with treble clef notates everything an octave higher than it's sung? I'd be bold here, but I don't really have the expertise... Bedesboy (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fairly common in opera parts, but all but nonexistent in choral music. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, "tenor C" is often used to designate C3, and "great C" to designate C2 (respectively the lowest notes of the "tenor octave" C3-B3 and the "great octave" C2-B2). The unsourced names given in this article for these notes (and also "soprano C") seem non-standard and idiosyncratic to me, a classical musician with many decades of experience and a former part-time college music-theory instructor. 72.76.9.51 (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

High C
Is the C 2 octaves above middle C really called "high C"? The system I was taught at school states that the C one octave above "middle C" is "high C" and two octaves above middle C is "top C" Howlingmadhowie (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the C two octaves above middle C is what is commonly referred to as high C.Plumadesabiduría (talk) 11:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tenors sometimes refer to the octave above middle C as "high C" &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Defining C4
The article says that C4 denotes middle C on the piano, and strongly implies that the "4" in this designation means this is the fourth C on the piano. Narrowly speaking, this is correct, but if the reader is wanting to understand other similar designations, such as A4, this could lead the reader to think that A4 would designate the fourth A on the piano. From info on other sites, I think that is not the case. I think A4 denotes the A above C4, which is typically the fifth A on the piano. I think the octave number is held constant from any C through the B above that C. I think the lowest 4 notes on the typical piano are A0, Bb0, B0 and C1. 24.20.64.156 (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Middle C redirect changed
Middle C used to be a redirect to the appropriate section here. I've changed it to redirect to the full article itself, since there is a need to disambiguate the note from the newly published novel. As it is, the lede and the TOC are both small, and the Middle C section is first anyway, so it should not cause any confusion. See the new and improved hatnote. I also changed the Supergrass song link to refer directly to the song's article, not the band. Choor monster (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead
The lead is far too technical for casual readers. Let's be honest, if somebody doesn't know what C is, what hope do they have of understanding the opening of the article? I'm too far removed from music theory to fix it completely. Andrew327 04:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC) I put in a description of where middle C physically is on the piano keyboard under "Middle C" (I figured most laypeople would get that)... should we maybe just state that C is the white key to the left of the group of two black keys? That's about as simple as it gets. Chell0wFTW (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:LEAD frequency and derivation
Yesterday I made an edit per WP:OBVIOUS and WP:LEAD adding "Middle C's frequency of 261.626 Hz is logarithmically derived from the A 440Hz pitch standard."; this appears to be have been straight reverted with no attempt made to tweak or improve it to deal with an issue highlighted in the edit summary.

The rationale for the addition is as follows: (1) Middle C redirects to this article; (2) what determines what a note is, is (a) its relationship to other notes in a scale-system or choice, and (b) the arbitrary tying of that scale-system to an arbitrary starting point. These three are fundamental to why a note is the note that it is: so why C is C, not E, G or B#. We currently have a situation where A440 (pitch standard) article quite rightly links to this C (musical note), article, but we don't have a corresponding associative link back for context.

I greatly would appreciate some guidance on how the lede text can be worded to contain links to all the important contextual articles (such as chromatic scale), in a way that helps the reader to understand why C is C. And of course in a way that links to other articles, rather than duplicating a lot of mathematics already written down elsewhere on Wikipedia. This of course should reflect that the A440 (pitch standard) is not being absolute (but mere only the common case, and that used in international standards). Ideas gratefully received. —Sladen (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the information can be returned to the article but with more ambiguity, allowing middle C to be other values than standard. The concept of middle C does not depend on A440 used as the standard, and so its frequency does not, either. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * [ec]I'd like to see a link to Pitch (music) in the lead of this article. It already has has a link to Scale (music). I am not sure how to go about determining what "all the important contextual articles" are, that have useful places in the lead of this article, which does seem to be a bit sparse.


 * The first section of this article, titled "Middle C", mentions the approximate frequency of 261.626 Hz and links to scientific pitch notation and piano key frequencies. Both of those articles have a link to A440 (pitch standard) near the top. Both of those articles mention the logarithmic nature of musical pitches (as used in the common practice period and beyond.)


 * I don't think logarithms have a place in the lead here. An exact logarithmic relationship among pitches implies equal temperament. In more general terms, musical scales are often formed without the use of logarithms, and I believe the lead, to be accurate, should use terms of broadest general application. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be appropriate to give an approximate frequency. For example, "The pitch of Middle C is in most cases around 261Hz." The lede doesn't need to worry about tuning systems, but scientific precision and mathematical details are likewise unnecessary. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A frequency for middle C is given in the first phrase of the first sentence in the first section after the lead. This article is not about middle C, but rather the role of the entire pitch class, including C0 at somewhere around 16 Hz.


 * I'm of two minds about the lead. It does seem to be on the skimpy side, but this is a very short article, so the skimpiness may be appropriate. Suggestions for fleshing it out will be welcome. It's going to be tricky to find relevant things to say, central to the subject, while keeping it neat and accurate. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Middle C
Hello.

The middle C (which is at the exact center of the keyboard) on my piano is 523.251 Hz, not 261.626 Hz. Also, when I listened to the samples, they were an octave above the specified frequencies. Can somebody offer clarification? Thanks. 2602:304:59B8:1B69:F1D9:B818:1206:C339 (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The physical location of Middle C depends on the keyboard you are using, how many keys it has, and any octave-shift that might be pre-configured. In your example, the key being pressing to get 523Hz (= double the frequency) is C5, not C4 .  I would concur that the article could be clearer in explaining that middle C" is not simply the central-most physical key, but the physical key that generates a note of c.261Hz.  —Sladen (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My piano is standard, so how does middle C receive a categorization as the one below the center, let alone that the majority of MIDI programs and keyboards I use define it as C5? In the standard range of C0 to C10, C5 is the exact middle. Can you explain? 2602:304:6F8B:19F9:5C3A:EE32:75DD:6975 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Middle C is the note on the ledger line that falls between the bass and treble staves on a musical score; hence "Middle". The player reads this note (which corresponds to 261Hz), adds any transposition, and then chooses a combination on the instrument's input mechanism that they know will produce 261Hz.  On some instruments there is more than one way to play the same note.  —Sladen (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you check the key numbers on Piano key frequencies, you will note that Middle C is actually closer to the centre than C5 is (that remains true even if you ignore the black keys). Also, the standard range of General MIDI (see the MIDI note number section here) is not C0 to C10, but C-1 to G9 (since C10 vibrates at nearly 17 kHz – close to the The Mosquito's frequency! –, out of the range of most adults, or at the very limit of hearing at best, it makes no sense to include it in any standard range). So Middle C is appropriately named after all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to know which MIDI programs and keyboards exactly define Middle C as C5, and in which way(s) exactly. That claim sounds quite strange to me. Frankly, it is hard to assume good faith here, and I have to wonder if you are trolling. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Apple GarageBand mislabels Middle C as "C3", and its keyboard ranges from "C-2" to "G8", i. e., C-1 to G9 – the standard range of General MIDI as mentioned above. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, sorry, I think you are honestly confused now, not trolling. See this source, which indicates that various programs variously designate C4 (c') as either C3 or C5, which is of course outrageous. Also, de:Oktave says that some MIDI programs offer a range from C0 to B9 (though this is hardly "the standard range" and far from implying that Middle C is C5), while explicitly noting that the upper limit makes little sense. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The tone samples for C-1, C0, C1 indeed seem to be one octave higher than the specified frequencies, as a spectrum analysis shows. Pluie.noire (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

audio format
Should a better format be used for sample sounds, as described in WP:Audio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VIOLENTRULER (talk • contribs) 06:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"Natural scale"
Why does it say "natural scale"? The link goes to natural minor scale. Misty MH (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC) Misty MH (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The 'play' buttons to play the pitches seem to just give downloads of the notes, not actually play them. (Chrome). If wikipedia can't support playing a pitch it should be labeled as something else, if it can, it doesn't seem to work. Sorry, I usually only do typo types of changes so this is beyond what I know how to fix. 108.183.22.70 (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Using .mid files for samples seems like a bad idea
MIDI is not implemented consistently across all operating systems, browsers, players, and hardware. The instrument banks vary a lot in my experience. Not to mention that Chrome, at least, won't play a .mid file back inline, but downloads it.

I feel like the tone samples should be in some standard pre-sampled format that can be played/streamed inline on the page. They could even be generated live in JS.

(Edit: Not that MIDI samples are bad. I could see offering both an inline sample playback and downloadable versions in MIDI, OGG, web audio, or whatever too. These may all be useful to some reader at some point.)

I don't know much about how audio samples are normally handled on WP, and I don't want to mess with a page that's well outside my normal sphere of knowledge, but I do know the way it is right now sucks for someone exactly like me. Felice Enellen (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Words "B-sharp" and "D-double flat"
The insertion of the nouns "B-sharp" and "D-double flat", the enharmonic notes of C, is not an error. These reversions are injust.

179.99.165.113 (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Low C
No way C2 is considered "easy" for a bass to sing. The typical low end for bass is E2. 2600:1008:A118:3AC3:3047:8269:246F:8AE5 (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * there is also no source for this fallacious claim 2600:1008:A118:3AC3:3047:8269:246F:8AE5 (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Audio samples
The audio samples contain the C in question and then the octave above. This is utterly misleading, and I am minded to delete all them forthwith. MinorProphet (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)