Talk:Elements of music/Archive 2

Requested move
I am rather disappointed that the request above gave no result and did not even trigger a single reaction. I do not intend to renew the request myself, but if anyone else did so I would support it, of course. -- Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think one issue is that the title of this article could be hundreds of things. Just using "part" gives us three options: "part of music", "music part", and "musical part" (and three more if we include plurals). Hyacinth (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hyacinth, and everybody. It is true that the title of this article could be many things (not "hundreds", though). But it would be wrong to consider them mere synonyms. As I wrote higher on this page,
 * "While the title of this article is Aspect of music, it never explains where this expression comes from. The lead adds terms that apparently can be considered synonyms: rudiment, characteristic, dimension, element, or parameter, but fails to explain in what sense these are synonyms – or not."


 * The article Music has an extended section on the "elements" of music, beginning with these words:
 * "Music has many different fundamentals or elements. Depending on the definition of "element" being used, these can include: pitch, beat or pulse, tempo, rhythm, melody, harmony, texture, style, allocation of voices, timbre or color, dynamics, expression, articulation, form and structure. The elements of music feature prominently in the music curriculums of Australia, UK and USA. All three curriculums identify pitch, dynamics, timbre and texture as elements, but the other identified elements of music are far from universally agreed."
 * Note the addition of the word fundamentals to those already mentioned. This article further discusses the usage of the word "Elements", which it tracks back to Muzio Clementi.


 * I repeat a point made above on this page, that the term "Aspect", in the sense implied here, is found in none of the usual dictionaries of music; I had never met it in my 50 years as a professional music theorist. The various terms above, part, aspect, rudiment, characteristic, dimension, element, parameter, fundamental, are not synonyms. We might discuss their pros and contras, but it seems obvious to me that there are several arguments in favor of "elements" (in plural): it is the term that best describes what the article is about; it conforms with the choice made for the corresponding section in the Music article (with which, besides, this article should link); it also conforms with Elements of art. A comparison between the disambiguation pages Aspect and Element is also enlightening. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I think an important point here is that, though I may remain unconvinced, you are the only one to have voted. You say that the change may easily be done, so I say we do it. Hyacinth (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I won't renew my suggestion of a change of name, for the very reason that you state, that "I am the only one to have voted". I thought that the exchanges higher on this talk page evidenced that I was not the only one thinking the change was worth it. To the present silence I would have prefered negative opinions. But never mind: if nobody feels this change worth the trouble, lets forget about it. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are not the only one who feels the change is worth while. I find it most convincing to have the opinion of the editor who created this article in the first place, User:Hyacinth, although he reserves his opinion ("I may remainunconvinced"), also says the change should be made. I have never found "aspects" a very convincing word in this context, and agree that "elements" (plural) is an improvement.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Even although I had said that I wouldn't perform the move myself, considering that everybody was (more or less) in agreement and that nobody ... moved, I did it and moved this article to Elements of Music. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hucbald.SaintAmand. I am sorry I was not there to support you in the move of this page to "Elements of Music". I am not a regular contributor and only saw the suggestion well after it was made. I would like to thank you for the time and trouble you have spent completing this move. Rburtonresearch (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed the double redirects. Hyacinth (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * your link above was incorrect, due to a capital letter. Moreover, you did a cut-and-paste move instead of moving the whole page (or requesting an admin to do so). This is undesirable, because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Also, you started a new talk page, instead of moving the old one (which you could have done yourself). I have now repaired the page history of both the article and the talk page. In future, please ask for help if you need it, e.g. at the WP:Village pump. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:12, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Aspects of music
Category:Aspects of music has been nominated for. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

"But it doesn't mean anything!"
I apologise unreservedly and wholeheartedly for my previous (now deleted) tasteless post. Nevertheless, I would be grateful if someone could explain - in plain English and preferably in words of less than four syllables - the meaning and purpose of this article. Also, why "Anon. & 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003" is a valid reference and not a joke.

I would take exception with Nattiez (1990) that "sound is a minimal condition of the musical fact", since I can hear music in my head, and there is no 'sound'. Is a printed score "music"? No, it's dots on lines on paper. But anyone with an ability to read a score at sight will certainly be able to hear the whole piece in their head, soundlessly. MinorProphet (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would furthermore be most grateful if someone could demonstrate whether the fragment of musical notation at the top of the article is deliberately musically meaningless, or not: and if so, why? (Hint: it lacks a time signature) MinorProphet (talk) 04:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, while I cannot speak for every editor who has ever edited this page (nor for the ones responsible for the passages you've highlighted as problematic), I would say: 1) The article is about the elements of music, which is "a level (or more) above" the elements of sound (pitch, dynamic, timbre and duration). Basically, a list of musical parameters or elements of musical organization than can be (and have been) worked with in the process of creating a composition. 2) The Anon reference is humorous on the surface but at the end of the day, it appears in the context of references to dictionaries and makes more sense when seen in that light. 3) I would not disagree with that, though it would be easy for this discussion to enter the realm of philosophy of language and the meaning of simple words. 4) Yes, there is no time signature, but the musical sample does not strive to illustrate their use and there are many 20th-century scores that do not contain time signatures. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kindly reply. Does any composer actually consider any of these things when transcribing the sounds in their head (ie composing music), or is the article merely a review of a number of academic exercises in futility? I'm glad you can see that the humorous side of the reference I pointed out: but this is an encyclopedia and not a stand-up comedy club, and I would tend to say that all such similar refs are deliberately taking the piss and need deleting along with the sentences they refer to. Obviously I could correct them, but in my opinion the editors who concocted them must have known they were being deliberately misleading. For my part, the musical sample simply makes no sense. The trombone part must have rests, otherwise it is meaningless. Even if there is no time signature, the trombone would finish four times as quickly as the inaudible violinist. Maybe that doesn't matter, but I would suggest that many professional orchestral musicians would tend to refuse to play a work notated thus. In my personal opinion much of this article consists of a load of contentious unreferenced nonsense, and I am really tempted to stick a whole of cns and to swiftly remove anything without a decently-formed reference. I take your point about aspects the article swerving into the realms of philosophy, but without decent references to meaningful discussions, it tends to look like an echo-chamber circle-jerk. I'm sorry, I haven't referred to your numbered points - It might be better if we consider everything one point at a time. Best regards, MinorProphet (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The image at the top of the article notates pitch, dynamics, articulation, and instrumentation, as the caption says. Musicians frequently encounter notation without visible time signatures, such as after page turns.
 * I think that composers do think about things like pitch, rhythm, and dynamics, especially while notating them. Unless there are zombie composers.
 * This article simply says what Nattiez's opinion is, it does not endorse his opinion. If you disagree with him you can take it up with him or, preferably, find a source which expresses a contrary opinion and add a quote to the article (this would be great as it would widen the perspectives presented but not endorsed by the article). Hyacinth (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just above Nattiez's opinion you disagree with the counterexample you gave is described: "The process of reading music, at least for trained musicians, involves a process, called 'inner hearing' or 'audiation' by Gordon, where the music is heard in the mind as if it were being played (Gordon 1999)." Hyacinth (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. It's interesting how many people seek to defend the nonsensical example at the top of the page. Does it necessarily actually have to be musically meaningful? If so, in my book there must be an equal number of beats in each bar, whatever the time signature. If not, the caption should make it plain that it's just a load of bollocks. MinorProphet (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Ahh, de-indent, my fave template. A week later, and no reply. Proposed pic caption:

Or maybe I should just remove it. Also, cns on the way (as advertised on this channel), which will need responding to within a week, since I intend to delete the offending text. Since this is an article about a somewhat recondite subject, almost every sentence will need to be reffed, as per WP:REFS. MinorProphet (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't seriously expect your proposal to gain consensus? The current caption is just fine. As for the lack of references: I suggest you read the article again; it has scores of references. In fact, as you observed in your initial post, it may suffer from citation overkill. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Michael, thanks for taking time to comment. No, I don't expect consensus, it was a deliberate wind-up. In my opinion most WP articles on music theory are considerably sub-standard, and unfortunately this one enrages me beyond belief. After a period of reflection I have come to the conclusion that my strong emotions would tend to undermine any contributions I could make to this article, since they would tend to be aggressive and not in the communal spirit which defines WP as we work towards a higher purpose. Therefore I mostly intend to leave this article and talk page alone, since I have much better things to do. Before I go, do you personally believe that the quoted example actually does make musical sense? Does it have to make sense? Would you accept that there is some inconsistent and therefore misleading quality inherent in the example? Specifically, does each vertically arranged bar in a score necessarily have to contain the same number of beats/note values/rests? I contend that they must, otherwise chaos ensues. I speak as a conductor. Tickets, please. MinorProphet (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As User:Hyacinth observed above, the image shows pitch, dynamics, articulation, and instrumentation – just as the caption says. Of course it's unlikely to be found in any actual score, but that's irrelevant for demonstrations. Music theory texts and Wikipedia articles are full of such notations. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "...that's irrelevant for demonstrations." But suppose all the demonstrations persuade you that it's OK to write a musical score where the number of beats in a bar doesn't actually matter at all?
 * In a previous existence, I was employed—on an international level—to teach IT hardware and software to intelligent adults for six years. My demonstrations were live, and concerned company-wide data integrity. If I had tried for a single moment to pretend that anything I was teaching was irrelevant, I would have been shouted down in the lecture theatre and probably, rightly, lost my job.
 * "Music theory texts and Wikipedia articles" etc. References, please. Please be aware that I am talking about this particular example, which as you well know in the depths of your heart (but apparently cannot admit), is a load of musical nonsense. I agree that the example and caption do indeed demonstrate the points which you mention: I refer you to the joke about Microsoft manuals: they tell you everything except what you actually need to know.
 * Furthermore I notice that you have cunningly avoided my query, "Specifically, does each vertically arranged bar in a score necessarily have to contain the same number of beats/note values/rests?" If you fail to answer this question, I will delete the example unless anyone can show why it should be retained. MinorProphet (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Polymetre. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your diligence. If the example does indeed demonstrate polymetre, may I suggest that the caption should make this somewhat esoteric fact obvious, since the article's title is "Elements of music". We wouldn't want to be throwing musical novices to the wolves, would we? MinorProphet (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Genuine thanks for the most interesting link, Michael B., I am considerably better informed. Well, it's taken since 13 September 2020 to extract an answer to my question whether the "fragment of musical notation at the top of the article is deliberately musically meaningless, or not: and if so, why? (Hint: it lacks a time signature)". As an editor of professionally-recorded and released symphonic scores, I would suggest that the crotchet (US: 1/4-note) and semibreve (US: whole note) should be vertically aligned, which could be achieved by increasing the height between the (UK & US) staves. This would be a trivial task for someone with access to Sibelius, zB me. Or I could insert some rests. Latest caption proposal: Aspects of music illustration.png by combining ) and ) although it lacks a time signature. ]]

Ahh, de-indent, much better. Huge, vast space to breathe. But best hurry, time is already running out... MinorProphet (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not construct an example that satisfies the current caption and your concerns? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If I may say so, this a perfect example of what I call upside-down thinking. Surely the caption serves to explain the image, not the other way round? I am unlikely to create an image that exemplifies a wholly unsatisfactory sentence. MinorProphet (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can certainly create an example which illustrates my proposed caption, however. What objections would you have?



Or, how about an extract from Faerie's Aire and Death Waltz etc.? MinorProphet (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)