Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2023 February 7

= February 7 =

Incorrect numbers for numerical sight-singing
Look at this:

https://www.longhu.ml/ProductDetail.aspx?iid=229662446&pr=58.88

Read the numerical sight-singing article. The above link's numbers are wrong because the song (assuming the starting note is C) is in the key of F, not C. Do some musicians follow the wrong rule when they use numerical sight-singing?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's fine. The only difference between the key of C and the key of F is that the C has a "B" note in it, while the key of F has a "Bb" in it.  Since the melody of amazing grace doesn't have that note in it either way, which is to say it has neither the seventh degree of the key of C nor the third fourth degree of the key of F, it actually doesn't matter for the melody whether it is in the key of C or F.  Look at the numbers in the link: No 7.  So, you can notate it either way and get the correct melody.  It's perfectly fine.  I do agree that "F" feels like a better key because the song "lands" on "F"; it's where the melody feels resolved (the final syllable "see" lands there), but from a notational perspective, the file you put above doesn't miss any notes.  It literally plays the correct melody.  So it gets the job done.  -- Jayron 32 15:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The third note of the F major scale is A, which the song clearly has. Georgia guy (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A is also in the C major scale. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  15:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * For clarification, my comment showed an error in Jayron32's answer that the link is fine. Georgia guy (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now corrected that. However, it doesn't change the point of my response to you.  The link is still fine.  The point is that the only note of difference is B/Bb between the two scales.  This melody has neither.  I conceded that the song is best described as being in "F" for the melody shown because that's where the "home" is, where the song feels most rested.  However, there are different reasons for notating a song certain ways, and the link you provided is basically designed to help little kids pluck out the tune without knowing much, if any, music theory or notation.  If I glue a big fat "1" sticker on the "C" key on my piano, and number the rest of the notes in the key of C, the kid playing that will play the exactly correct melody for the song.  So, it works.  Things like "what key is this in" is only mostly an academic exercise; it helps musicians who know some theory.  The link you gave is designed to help a little kid plunk out the correct melody.  Which it does just fine.  -- Jayron 32 15:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you make the table in the Numerical sight-singing article more flexible when it comes to the statement that sometimes even if a song is in F the column on the right of a table is sometimes used as the table says (as opposed to the more natural rule for such songs that F is 1, G is 2, etc.)?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I cannot. Can you make your understanding of musical notation more flexible, so that you aren't always trying to force it to be more rigid than it actually is?  -- Jayron 32 16:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please mark any false information in the following:


 * There are 12 different musical keys, each one has its own tonic.
 * Transposing a song from one key to another will simply change its pitch; it won't change how the melody sounds assuming you obey the key signature correctly and use notes not in it only if the song has such notes.
 * "Amazing Grace", in C major, starts with the notes "G-C-E-C-E-D-C-A-G".
 * Numerical sight-singing is a key-generic way to refer to a song's tune. It allows one to name a song's tune without specifying the key. (In other words, the numbers 1-7 can be converted to a note's letter name by specifying a key. In the key of C, this means 1 is C, 2 is D, 3 is E, and so on.)
 * Using numerical sight-singing, Amazing Grace would start out as 5-1-3-1-3-2-1-6-5.

Georgia guy (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything you say above is at once correct and irrelevant. The page you linked to is not trying to be Numerical sight-singing.  It's just someone who numbered the lowest note in the song "1" and numbered the rest of the notes diatonically, so that they can teach a kid to play the melody on a piano without first teaching them all of music theory.  -- Jayron 32 17:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, on your last one, if you started on 5, the numbers would need to go 5-8-10-8-10-9-6-5, because if you start at 5 and go down to 1, you're now an octave too low. The melody goes up, not down, in tone.  You're going UP from C to F, (or if you want, from G to C) not down.  Also also, the page you linked is not Numerical sight-singing, but just someone using numbers to teach kids to play a piano.  -- Jayron 32 17:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Whatever note you start on, the song is in the major key of the second note. In terms of solfege, it starts with sol do. While the seventh of the scale does not occur in the pentatonic first voice, it will appear in any reasonable harmonization, and probably already when a second voice is added. From a didactic point too, it is better to start with 5 1. --Lambiam 16:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What do the colors red and blue that you use stand for?? Do they have any official use in writing a song's melody with numerical sight-singing?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I was just copying the colours of the numbers in the image on that website. --Lambiam 17:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Now, let me see what the one statement that Jayron32 wants me to include as part of my knowledge. The best answer I can think of is:

Most preschoolers don't understand the meaning of "we can't call C 1 in this song because it is not in the key of C". They understand C as 1 as being valid for any song that uses only white keys on the piano even if not in the key of C major. Georgia guy (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Fairly sure most preschoolers don't understand any such thing. They probably have almost zero understanding of what a key is, what C is other than a letter of the alphabet and what the difference is between the black keys and white keys other than colours. I'm not even convinced most preschoolers are even aware that the black keys and white keys are in the same location on every piano or heck even that a piano has black and white keys. Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Musical key is not an immutable law of the universe; it's a notational convenience so that musical ideas can be effectively communicated to musicians; it's also not even useful or relevant for all types of music (and not even for all types of Western music, check out Giant Steps (composition), or google "What key is Sweet Home Alabama in, or in the music of Arnold Schoenberg). Let's get to the key of Amazing Grace.  If we're trying to communicate using a musical staff, I might include the "one flat" key signature, since as I said, the melody does have the sense of landing on "F" as its "place of rest".  If we're trying to give a bunch of jazz musicians a key center to improvise over, I'll tell them the key of "F" so that they can predict the changes and choose appropriate licks and chords and musical ideas to inform their improvisation.  If I'm trying to get a 4 year old to pluck out the melody of Amazing Grace on a piano, I'm going to put some numbers or colors on the keys, and I'm going to number all of the notes, and tell them to play along with the numbers.  It doesn't matter in that context what the "key" is.  That's why I said it was "fine".  The purpose of a key is to communicate with the performer something about the music they are about to perform.  If I'm communicating to a small child, they don't really care what the key is.  The numbers serve the purpose fine.  Even moreso that "C" is the lowest note in the song.  Make the lowest note "1" is probably better for a small child.  After all, if you don't do that, they'll play the wrong "C" and the song will sound off to them.  The first note of the song is the lowest one.  That's why it is numbered 1.  If you want to number "F" the lowest, you'd need at lot more than 8 numbers.  -- Jayron 32 17:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The concept of key in Western music is not a "notational convenience"; it exists independent of notation. Some successful songs have been written by musicians who never managed to learn music notation, but these songs are still in a key when they play them on a guitar. The key signatures of a piece in F major and one in D minor are the same. --Lambiam 00:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sort of; I probably should have said that key signature is a notational convenience. Key, however, is still just something made up for Western music to communicate an idea to musicians.  Even if not written and communicated verbally, it isn't anything inherent to the notes themselves, it's a shorthand way to tell the musicians a lot of information about a piece of music because those musicians were trained in the same conventions.  When I say something is in "the Key of F", I am telling the musicians who are playing the piece which specific scales and chords are used to build the piece, what the chord functions of specific chords are going to be, what the "place of rest" is terms of melody and chord progression, etc. etc.  There are other, less efficient ways to learn the music in question, though.  For example, I can just watch someone else play the piece, and they can explain what fingerings they are using and what specific stings on the guitar they are picking, etc.  Key is not strictly required, it's just something that was collectively decided on as a way to communicate.  The point is that key is only a means of communicating an idea, and not even the only way.  Often, key is a useful way to do so; but not always.  And as I noted above, it isn't even universal.  There are pieces of music for which the key is ambiguous.  -- Jayron 32 12:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Or non-existent. See atonality. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I did mention Schoenberg above. -- Jayron 32 13:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Scales and tones too are just something made up for music; see e.g. portamento. There are pieces of music in which tones are non-existent. --Lambiam 21:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course; there are entire musical traditions built on percussion. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Maps about two regions of India
Purvanchal and Awadh are two regions of India with two maps not clear. If you see and  you see they have overlapping borders. Since I want to use them within Wikivoyage, do you know which one is correct? Codas (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The Purvanchal map is claimed to represent the situation in the present day, and is presumably legally correct, although the article discusses a movement to secede from the State of Uttar Pradesh, which might involve some territorial disputes.
 * The Awadh map is also "modern", but the article is mostly about it as a Historical region which, as far as I can tell from the article (and I might be being dense), has little autonomous identity within modern Uttar Pradesh.
 * So it's entirely possible that both maps, though contradictory, are "correct" in a particular context. Others with more expertise in Indian history and politics need to research this for you further. One thing is certain, neither map should be used to support any currrent political discussions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.141.181 (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)