Talk:Comma (music)

Unreferenced
What needs to be referenced, where, and why? Hyacinth (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Undecimal comma
I undid the reversion of my edit since the undecimal comma is used in just intonation. I'm also not sure how a source would be unreadable. Hyacinth (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure either, it now perfectly readable. I've withdrawn my objection and have also incorporated your Small undecimal comma (with your ref) and two forms of diesis into the table, now sorted from smallest to largest. -- Glenn L (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic definition
I warn you, because I have not enough time to edit: the definition given in the introduction is fully understandable only by experts. Although it allegedly was found in the "Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians" (Waldo Selden Pratt, 1922), it may be quite difficult to understand to 99% (I guess) of the people: those who do not know extended scales (with more than 12 notes). Typically, people is supposed to be familiar with diatonic and chromatic scales. In both these scales, each note has a unique tuning. No note is tuned "two different ways".

Only circles of fifths, typically with 13 notes, or extended scales (e.g. 24-tone scales) show one or more couples of enharmonically equivalent notes. However, commas are quite well visible even in 12-tone scales if they are defined as the difference between two semitones (e.g. m2 and A1), or between two enharmonically equivalent intervals, as I explained in the "Alternative definition" section.

So, isn't the reader supposed to know too much to understand the main definition given in the introduction? Isn't it preferable to minimize implicit reference to complex concepts, and thus maximize the number of readers able to understand? Of course, the concept of diatonic and chromatic semitone is not elementary, but since it does not involve unusually large scales, IMO it is prefereble to start from that. There's always something that the reader is supposed to know, but it should be as simple as possible, and explicitly explained to those who don't know it, e.g. by providing internal links. Paolo.dL (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I edited a little, but the example about extended scales is still in the first sentence. Perhaps, now it could be deleted, as I inserted a simpler example before that. But I also made it less cryptic. So, I need your advice. Are both examples useful in your opinion? Or the first one (about syntonic comma) is enough in the introduction? Paolo.dL (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I added these images, which probably solve the problem: &minus; Paolo.dL (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The images are helpful. The widths of the Pythagorean comma and diesis, however, should be narrowed as follows:
 * The Pythag. comma should be 26% (23.5/90.2) as wide as the diatonic semitone (image ratio 90.2—23.5—90.2).
 * The diesis should be 54% (41.06/76.05) as wide as the chromatic semitone (image ratio 76.05—41.06—76.05).
 * — Glenn L (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, by mistake I forced PC to 23% of C-D, and LD to 41% of C-D (rather than 23% and 41% of 100 cents!), and hence my semitones are too short. Thank you. I fixed them.
 * &minus; Paolo.dL (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Much better! I fixed the quarter-comma meantone and enharmonically equivalent links so they doesn't redirect. Thanks! — Glenn L (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Image ratios
Should you have two rectangles of the same size which contain within them rectangles sized differently to scale rather than two rectangles of different sizes which contain rectangles of different sizes? Hyacinth (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Why would the two images be displayed wider than 400px? Hyacinth (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I explained everything already in your talk page:


 * I am the author of these two images. They are drawn in scale, meaning that you can compare the sizes of the two commas, semitones and tones. So, I set a width, for both of them, equal to exactly 50% the full original image width (I chose the font size of the labels, in the original image, to make them well readable when reduced to 50% original size).


 * MOS:IMAGES says that "an image can be wider" [than 400px] "if it uses the center or none options to stand alone".


 * Anyway, my main point is that, whatever is their size, the two pictures cannot have the same width, as they are drawn in scale.


 * — Paolo.dL (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding my point and computing correct proportions. However, this is just a matter of personal preference (see MOS:IMAGES), so please indulge me. I designed these pictures to be read at 50% their original size, and even their caption is written so that it fills no more than 3 rows when they have 50% width.


 * — Paolo.dL (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is important for you to understand that I just insist to keep the original size of the images, as set by the author (see previous section). I am not the one who want to change it. So I believe you are the one who should give a valid reason to reduce the size, rather than asking me for the reason why I want to keep the original size. And the only reason you gave was based on an incomplete summary (given in WP:IMGSIZE) of the policies more detailedly described in MOS:IMAGES, that I summarized in your talk page, in my edit summary, and above. So, this is a matter of personal preference, not a matter of respecting policies or respecting your edits. In this case, the wisest solution is to keep the original size, as set by the author. What would you say if somebody decided to change the size of your pictures, without a valid reason?

Notice however that I am not willing to fight to impose the author's choice by force. I would very much prefer to convince you. Indeed, even if you did not give a valid reason for changing the size, as you can see in my edit summaries and in your talk page, I carefully explained the reasons why I did not completely accept your change.

— Paolo.dL (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, have you noticed that, before restoring the original size, a few edits ago, I "centered" the images? This way, I avoided the problem of excessively compressing the text. So, I did not just revert your edit. That was because I understood the rationale of your initial edit and I respected it. So, we have already reached a compromise between your personal preference and mine.

— Paolo.dL (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
Can a redirect be added for the search "musical comma"? I searched that and this article was the fifth to appear. Helixer ( hábleme ) 05:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't see why not; done. / ninly ( talk ) 06:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Septimal kleisma
The table states that the Septimal kleisma is the difference between 2 minor 3rds and 1 Septimal Major 3rd. That can't be right since that difference would be about as big as a tone. 98.208.250.97 (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I changed the intervals to what it says in the septimal kleisma article. Hyacinth (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Outdated references
The reference "List of commas, by prime limit in the Xenharmonic wiki" links a closed site on wikispace. It should be deleted or replaced.176.23.5.76 (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)