Talk:Music theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contributors please read WikiProject Music terminology if you consider working on these subjects.

Contents 1 To do 2 Intro 3 List 4 Ineffable? 5 Jazz theory 6 I'm in 7 music theory master page 8 why is my exernal link removed? 9 Musicians Wiki 10 Graphics 11 Nonencyclopedic tone material moved here 12 sentence on dissonance 13 critique: paragraph on timbre 14 Star Wars 15 Savage breast 16 nothing on texture? 17 Loose end 18 Definition 19 Recent deletions 20 Ear Training 21 External Link To Google Groups 22 sight-singing 23 Suggestion for Reorganization 24 Fixed "notation" section discrepancy 25 Music theorist 26 Diatonic and chromatic

[edit] To do

• Some clarification needs to be made between different schools of terminology. For instance, there needs to be a page explaining the difference between Classical, East Coast/Berklee Jazz and West Coast/Commercial pop nomenclature, particularly on the chord page which currently betrays a definite Berklee bias, because that's how I think. I'm currently trying to draft someone that I know would be capable of doing it, but if someone else feels up to the task, please do so.

• The tuning page is a night mare. It needs some sort of major overhaul, and the task is so large that no one has yet been willing to take it on.

• There are a number of sub articles, such as chord, scale, and counterpoint which rightfully belong as sub headings of Harmony. How exactly to go about this, I'm not quite sure.

• The pages are currently quite weak on History. There has been some effort to add entries on individual composers, and those efforts are to be applauded, but as far as an actual overview of Music History goes, we are currently very lacking.

• Finally, and most dauntingly, many of the pages as they now exist are still rife with error, and many pages need large re-writes. This only adds to the incoherence on this topic which is introduced due to inconsistent use of terminology. The terminology issue is something that we need to get out in the open, and there needs to be established a definite default nomenclature for theoretical matters. I think that the traditional classical music approach should probably be deferred to, with treatment within that with differences in terminology. For instance, when dealing with chords, the lower case roman numerals should always be used for minor chords.

These are just some thoughts, and I'd really like to hear what other people think. I'm new to Wikipedia myself, but I've already become quite taken with concept. Unfortunately, I think there are really only a few of us at this point who have the background to properly address the topic. To that end, I think that we should all make the effort to try to recruit more people to the cause so that this resource can become as complete and usefull as I know it can. JFQ

I agree. We're lacking a lot in this area, and a big clean-up is needed. We may as well use this talk page as our base of operations.

• Tuning Page: I'll start moving text from the tuning articles back in.

You are braver than I.JFQ

done. it's still a mess, but we can see at a glance what we're dealing with. -- t.

• Terminology: How about we create a Music Terminology page? Bring in the debates on "tone" and "note" and "pitch" from other pages -- they'll be useful too for definitions of the concepts. -- Tarquin

Excellent Idea. I'll get on that. JFQ

[edit] Intro

So I recently changed the intro paragraph to: "Music theory is a term for ways to think about music. In its broadest sense theory ranges from highly technical theories to the most basic assumptions such as which music is 'good.'"Hyacinth

This was an improvement over the previous: "Music theory is a way to think about music," since there are many music theories.

Camembert change my sentence to: "Music theory is the body of theory concerning music, as opposed to its performance. In its broadest sense theory ranges from the highly technical to the most basic assumptions such as what constitutes a 'note,'" since, "i'd not say deciding whether something is "good" is basic at all."

then to: "Music theory is the body of theory concerning music, as opposed to its performance. In its broadest sense theory ranges from the highly technical to apparently basic assumptions such as what constitutes a 'note,'" since, "maybe even that's not straightforward."

Camembert- I agree with taking out "good" but I don't think that your final sentence is otherwise an improvement. I think there are many music theories (as the above discussion recognizes). Traditional music theory actually is concerned with performance, in addition to the culture music is created in. Currently the latest version of the sentence excludes these topics. Also, both of us have been saying, "Music theory is theory about music," which is not the ideal first sentence. I leave the article as is (with your changes intact) until I have a better sentence to propose. Hyacinth

to explain...the split here is that some music theory has these very complex technical constructs, but these are all answers to simple questions compared to the most important questions, "Is it good?" "What makes it good?" These are handled mostly in the popular realm with very simple vernacular, not complex technical language. I wanted to touch on this breadth and depth in my revision of the intro.Hyacinth

Well, I just quickly edited the page to remove a "refers to" in the first sentence (it's a pet hate some people have, and I thought I'd change it before somebody else did) and to get rid of the implication that deciding whether music was good or not was a "basic assumption" - I agree that the end result isn't very beautiful, feel free to hack it about. For now, I'll remove the bit about theory being opposed to performance (I just meant to say that... well, it's theoretical rather than practical, but maybe it's superfluous to spell that out), and fiddle with the rest a bit, but really, it's hard to say anything very constructive about the subject, I think, because it's just too broad, and different people mean different things by the term. This page just seems to be serving as a gateway to some others. Of course, if you can do anything more interesting with it, feel free :) --Camembert

[edit] List

Something this article is coming up against is the nature of naming. We call elementary classes on harmony, counterpoint, and ear training Music Theory; this is also the name of a discipline in which people earn advanced degrees, and write books and dissertations. I don't see much of the latter end represented in this article. There could be an extended entry on Schenkerian analysis, music cognition, meter, rhythm, phenomenology, sonata theory/principle, narrative analysis/theory, neo-riemannian theory, etc. Musicology doesn't really have this problem - one's first undergraduate encounters with musicology come under the guise of "music history." Just a thought.

This article contains a list of music theory topics. It seems to me that this unecessarily duplicates List of musical topics. Does anyone see a reason for two seperate lists? Otherwise I will get rid of this, which may decimate this article.Hyacinth

Ok, I started to rewrite this article, as I said on Talk:List of musical topics#Music theory topics. It's not done -- more of a sketch, really -- but I think it's better than the big list that was there before. I didn't include everything that was on that list; most of what I left out is included below. Some, of it should probably go back in, but other things are explained elsewhere and aren't really relevant. I also changed the intro definition; it basically said, "music theory is theory about music and it can be simple or complicated", which doesn't really explain anything. -- Merphant 01:11, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• Musicology
• The mathematics of the Western music scale
• Microtonal music
• The tritone
• The key
• cadence (music)
• inversion (music)
• harmonic progressions
• harmonic accompaniment
• figured bass
• atonality
• The measure.
• hemiola
• Orchestration
• Arrangement
• Instrumentation
• Improvisation

[edit] Ineffable?

The following sentence was just added to the intro:

In the Western tradition, the study of music theory stems from a belief that the acts of composing, performing, and listening to music are all based on traditions that may be explicated to a high degree of detail (this, as opposed to a conception of musical expression as fundamentally ineffable except in musical sounds).

Why only in Western music? Anyway, this assumption about the "beliefs" of music theorists isn't really justified. To be sure, musical skills are taught and passed down (in every culture), but that doesn't mean that every aspect of composing or performing is rule-based. Rules come afterwards. Mozart didn't know what Roman numerals he was writing. And does this sentence add anything to the reader's understanding? It seems more like a disclaimer. Does the existence of a dictionary imply a belief that the act of verbal communication is based on traditions that may be explicated to a high degree of detail, as opposed to a conception of communication which is more organic? —Wahoofive (talk) 17:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Western music is the default music to study in music theory. This is in part due to the fact that most music theory relies on Western notation; most schools and professors of music theory teach Western almost if not completely exclusively; and Western music greatly dominates the written music scene. Of course, there is non-Western music theory, but because that is non-traditional, it is usually labeled with the specific tradition to be studied, e.g., Chinese Classical music theory, Indonesian Gamelan music theory, Indian sittar music theory, etc. Anyway, I changed the intro for the sake of clarification. Jordan 18:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jazz theory

I'm interested in expanding the coverage of jazz theory on Wikipedia--most of the music theory pages seem to be pretty specific to classical theory. Would it be better to add a section on jazz to various sections of existing music theory pages, or should we create separate jazz theory pages for each topic? And should there be a separate "top level" jazz theory page? --Rictus 7 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)

You would probably be more in the know about jazz theory than I, but I think it's extensive enough to warrant its own article. Perhaps a heading could be added quite high up in Music theory like

==Jazz Theory== Jazz music has its own blahblahblah. Blah blah blah. See [[jazz theory]] for main article.

--bleh fu talk fu July 7, 2005 19:23 (UTC)

I've started working on a jazz theory page in my own sandbox. When it's in decent shape I'll link it from this article as you suggest.--Rictus 8 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)

I'd like to work a bit on a jazz theory page as well. I'll focus on spelling chords and on which scales correspond to those chords. Jordan 17:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm in

I'm just getting acclimated to Wikipedia, but am willing to contribute to this topic. I have a MM in Music Theory from Northwestern Univ. After I have read through all of these comments a few times and absorbed them, I'll get back.

Welcome! Keep in mind that the comments above go back years, and may refer to things that have totally changed since then.—Wahoofive (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia as well but I was thinking that perhaps we should explore creating a WikiProject so that we can organize what we want to do with the music theory page. It seems to me that we should be trying to create a network of articles in a hierarchical structure, starting with music theory at the top, breaking down into the various types (western theory, Asian theory, notation, etc.). I plan on doing some work on this page and if anybody is interested in organizing to do this work, please leave some feedback here or on my talk page. I'm a music major, though I haven't got a degree yet.--David R Wright 02:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Might want to make it part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, although admittedly that's pretty out of date itself. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Great. I think that we should go ahead and get some work done before we consider making a WikiProject out of this, and then we should join the Music WikiProject only after we've done some work in the name of the WikiProject Music Theory. I have left my e-mail address on your talk page because I would like to discuss plans with you regarding this project. Please delete it from your talk page after you've e-mailed me. If you don't, I will. Cheers! --David R Wright 06:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] music theory master page

There needs to be an index page outlining all the music theory-related pages on wikipedia.

Or perhaps that should appear at the top of this article ...? Tony 01:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually this IS the index page, unless you mean just a list. See Category:Music theory —Wahoofive (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] why is my exernal link removed?

I added a link to my page ( [Musicians WIki ) but it is removed with a message "link spam".
Is it not allowed to place a link? If yes, why the other links are not removed?

The purpose of external links is not to promote other websites, but to provide places for Wikipedia readers to go to for more information. So, far, your site doesn't contain any information any deeper than what Wikipedia already provides in its own articles. I'll provide a link to the relevant policy shortly. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok I understand, I will ad the link when the site contains more info.

Wikipedia:External links actually discourages anyone from adding a link to their own site, on the theory that if it's notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, enough others will know about it to add it. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Musicians Wiki

http://musicianswiki.com is growing reasonably good at the moment, so I would like to make a request to all musicians here to take a look and maybe write a article/lesson. I still think that a separate wiki is better the just the articles here at wikipedia. The info here is not so well ordered as on musicianswiki. ;) -- Emiel[[1]]

Musicians Wiki seems to only have page after page of bot-generated links. I'd be happy to see how I might contribute there (in terms of articles and/or lessons), but I didn't find anything "wiki-like" there. Will check back. 69.145.177.155 20:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Kimberly G James

[edit] Graphics

I'd like to help out here. Until I find out where I'd be most useful, I can take requests for making Lilypond or Sibelius notation graphics for illustrating chords, scales, arpeggios, inversions, whatever. Just ask me. --Phil Kirlin 23:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There is (integrated) support for lilypond at Musicians Wiki. More info on how to use it here: http://musicianswiki.com/index.php/Help:Contents#Lilypond --Emiel http://musicianswiki.com/index.php/user:emiel

I couldn't get musicianswiki.com to work. --Jordan

-Secounded Also unable to get it to work -- Kevin

[edit] Nonencyclopedic tone material moved here

Four part writing is the primary method used to grasp and manipulate most of the work involved in Music Theory. There are four voices represented on the staff, using both the Treble and Bass Clefs. The soprano and alto voices reside on the treble clef, while the tenor and bass voices are placed on the bass clef. All the notes in four part writing are based on chords, as well as the relationship between chords. Using a C major triad chord, which has no accidentals in the key signature, one uses the notes C,E, and G. However, four notes have to be represented, hence it being called four part writing. In its most basic form, the bass note must be doubled in no particular spot, whether it be in the tenor, alto, or soprano, once it is written in the bass. We tell what chord it is by looking at the bass note. With the C major triad example, a C is written on the bass clef, and must be duplicated somewhere else. Many rules are used to govern where to place the rest of these notes, and we use them to keep the piece following a certain pattern or guideline. For instance, the tenor note cannot be higher than the bass in one chord, and after switching to another chord be lower than where the bass note currently is. This is called overlapping or crossover. Another thing to avoid between chords is parallel fifths and octaves. These intervals are fine by themselves, but when used with parallel motion in two adjacent chords is unacceptable. Usually two notes written anywhere on the staff cannot be more than an octave apart, except when it comes to the bass and tenor notes. Overall, there are many uses for four part writing, but in terms of basics, it is a tool used to construct musical pieces, as well as to learn the fundamentals of the "theory" behind music theory. Furthermore: four part writting is a crucial part of Orchestration.

• The above material seemed thoroughly non-encyclopedic so I substituted a short section referencing Fux. Ben Kidwell 06:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sentence on dissonance

"Consonance can be roughly defined as harmonies whose tones complement and augment each others' resonance, dissonance as those which create more complex acoustical interactions (called 'beats')."

I have issues with what the sentence says about dissonance. The two definitions don't quite parallel each other. Moreover, I worry that defining dissonance with beats is an overly narrow definition, and not necessarily an accurate definition across the variety of musical styles, traditions and cultures.

I don't feel qualified to make the appropriate change but whoever's reading this please try to revise that sentence. Or cite a reputable source if you feel the current definition is strongly justified. 131.107.0.106 18:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to Wiki and a bit timid to change an entry, but I agree that the bit on dissonance is lacking. Also, the bit on consonance is lacking. Consonance refers to harmonies that sound resolved or stable. Dissonance refers to harmonies that sound unresolved or unstable. What sounds resolved or unresolved depends on the musical context. For example, in jazz music, a chord that contains five different tones might sound consonant, whereas that same chord in classical music might sound dissonant. -Jordan

I strongly disagree with both of these positions. There is a clear difference between theoretical dissonance, and the subjective sense of instability or disorientation. One belongs in an encyclopedia article -- the other does not. Technically speaking, harmonic dissonance is the presence of beat patterns (sideband frequencies) created when two non-consonant notes interact with each other. These side-band frequencies can be detected, visually plotted, and measured easily, and there's nothing subjective about them.

Another source of musical tension, subjective disorientation, is not the same thing as harmonic dissonance, and can simply arise out of unfamiliarity with a particular style of music, or a variety of other factors. It does not belong in an encyclopedia article on music theory, except to provide a clear distinction from harmonic dissonance, so as to avoid the type of confusion experienced by 131.107.0.106 and Jordan. Dilvie 21:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Dilvie. Whether or not the term "dissonance" refers to subjective perception of disorientation, people commonly think of it as such. The truth is that the common usage of language gives words meaning, not the definition, and as such, words have multiple meanings depending on who you ask and when you ask it. Dissonance means what people use it to mean. In my experience, people use it to describe subjective discord. Language evolves like that. Besides, one cannot discredit the subjective nature of music. Otherwise, this article would only be able to relate the physical properties of how frequecies interact. Granted, I think referencing an article on the physics of phase cancelation (which is central to harmonic dissonance) would be a valuable addition. Still, when I was a music student, my professor defined music as "desired noise." As such, subjectivity is central in distinguishing music from mere sound. "Subjective dissonance" is the driving force of many musical systems. This is especially true for Western music, and is typified in the "ii-V7-I" progression. With that said, I agree the above definition of dissonance is vague, and it should be clarified so that common readers... those uneducated in music... can understand and learn from it. Wikipedia should be, first and foremost, a learning tool. -Travis, aka guitarlesson

I see your point, but more often than not, attempts to define dissonance in subjective terms in music theory texts have obscured the fact that harmonic dissonance is an objectively observable phenomenon that is audible in the form of beating, and clearly visible on a time-domain plot of the soundwave. That is the primary meaning of musical dissonance, and subjective disorientation is often caused by actual harmonic dissonance, or musical situations that suggest harmonic dissonance, such as melodic dissonance (When notes that are dissonant in relation to each other are played sequentially). Any attempt to define dissonance as subjective should not obscure the fact that harmonic dissonance is objective. I wouldn't be such a stickler about it, but this is a common blunder in music theory texts - many of which do not even hint that beating is objectively observable. There's a difference between adhering to popular convention and spreading misinformation. Dilvie 20:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] critique: paragraph on timbre

"Every object has a resonant frequency which is determined by the object's composition. The different frequencies at which the sound producers of many instruments vibrate are given by the harmonic series. The resonators of musical instruments are designed to exploit these frequencies. Different instruments have different timbres because of variation in the size and shape of the instrument."

I'm not too happy with this paragraph. The first sentence is inaccurate and misleading, except maybe when applied to a tuning fork. As mentioned on the wikipedia article for "resonance", most objects have more than one resonance frequency, which is the main reason why you get any appreciable timbre difference at all (ie. why instruments don't all sound like tuning forks). Secondable, the phrase "determined by the object's composition" is very likely to mislead the reader into thinking that the resonant frequencies of the instrument are fixed and unchangeable, which is of course false for any instruments that are capable of sounding equally well in more than one pitch. The whole point of playing an instrument is to manipulate it physically so that the resonant frequencies change (ie. shortening the column of air being vibrated in a reed or pipe instrument), and the word "composition" does not adequately convey this.

The second sentence is roughly correct but not entirely accurate. Inharmonicity, the deviation of the harmonic frequencies from the harmonic series, is quite common in many instruments. (If I recall, the piano at the bass range is one such case.) Some instruments like bells have clearly two distinguishable pitches. And percussion instruments are highly inharmonic.

The last sentence is incomplete: size and shape are part of it, but so is the means of sound production (ie. plucking the violin string vs. bowing), the materials involved, and more. If anything, size is not really a big factor in timbre differentiation: the size of a violin and a cello are very different, and thus their pitch range is quite different, yet they have far more similar timbre as compared to, say, a violin and a trumpet, whose size are far more similar.

By the way, the section on timbre is completely missing. This also means there is not a mentioning of important musical concepts like orchestration.

Again, I am probably not the best person to introduce the serious editing required for this, but please take these comments into consideration. And given that there are so many excellent articles in Wikipedia for the individual concepts relating to timbre etc., I think the whole paragraph should be simplified to be less technical and physics-oriented anyway.

[edit] Star Wars

A sentence in the ear-training section formerly read: "For example, the Perfect Fifth interval will sound like the beginning to the Star Wars theme". However, the interval at the very beginning of the Star Wars theme is actually a perfect fourth, so I more accurately referenced "twinkle twinkle little star" instead of Star Wars. DA723

131.107.0.106 18:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You must be thinking of the theme to Star Trek. The Star Wars theme certainly does start with a fifth. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I did mean Star Wars, but I was referring to the interval between the triplets, D above middle C, (that are a pickup to the real first measure of the theme) and the downbeat, G above middle C. While I agree that the next interval after this one is a fifth, I think that the interval people think of as the very opening to Star Wars is the fourth between the pickup and the downbeat. (See this link for clarification: http://aol.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=mn0017588&bookmark=0&title=star+wars+theme). Anyway, I think using Tiwnkle Twinkle as the example solves the problem because it is undebateable, and probably more well-known than the Star Wars theme anyway.

DA723

Star Wars absolutely does not start with a P5. The scale degrees in the beginning of Star Wars are 5-1-5... The interval from 5 to 1 is a P4. The next interval is a P5. Twinkle Twinkle is a much better example to use.

And by the way, the opening interval to Star Trek is a m7. It starts on scale degree 5 and jumps up to 4. 206.246.237.197 17:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 08:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DA723. In my mind, the rebel theme in Star Wars begins at the pickup, and as such, begins with a P4. From the downbeat, however, it is a P5. In light of this ambiguity, twinkle twinkle little star is a better choice. - Travis, aka guitarlesson

[edit] Savage breast

It's "savage breast". See William Congreve (playwright). Somebody else please revert the misquotation so I don't get busted for 3RR. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nothing on texture?

This article is missing a discussion on texture, which is a vital component of music and of music theory. Again, I'm new to Wiki and not comfortable enough to add an entry, but if I were to add one, I'd say texture refers to the integrated effect of melody and harmony.

Different types of texture include polyphony (many different musical lines sounding simultaneously), diaphony (melody + drone), heterophony (where musicians play similar but not same version of a melody simultaneously), monophony (a single line sound). I would also discuss "thin" and "thick" textures, where "thin" typically refers to sections of music with: (a) few pitches, and/or (b) music with relatively few instruments or voices sounding simultaneously, and/or (c) music with pitches far distant from each other; and "thick" typically refers to sections of music with: (a) many different pitches, and/or (b) music with relatively many instruments or voices sounding simultaneously, and/or (c) with pitches far closer to each other. If anyone is braver than I, have at it. -Jordan

I added a paragraph with bits from the texture (music) article. I left out thick and thin. Hyacinth 11:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loose end

This sentence needs to be removed or explained—why are they 'hot topics' and what are these topics?

In recent years, rhythm and meter have become hot topics among music scholars. Recent work in these areas includes books by Fred Lerdahl and Ray Jackendoff, Jonathan Kramer, Christopher Hasty, William Rothstein, and Joel Lester.

It would be more logical to use 'Temporal aspects' than rhythm as the subtitle, since metre is not, strictly speaking, rhythm. Periodicity could be treated under that heading as well. Tony 01:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

I don't like this sentence, in the lead:

Music theory may include any statement, belief, or conception of music (Boretz, 1995).

Statement of music? Belief of music? It's all too vague anyway, so why say it at all; does it really require a reference? Tony 01:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A statement is declaration, remark, or assertion. A belief is an acceptance of truth or conviction. What is vague about that? Hyacinth 03:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Hyacinth. I think it might require a reference, as other people define it differently. I personally disagree with this statement, but it is not vague. If you play a 4/4 pattern with a rest on beat 4 and someone believes it's a beat in 3, that hardly makes for music theory. At least not the kind that some people go to school for 8 years to learn.--Josh Rocchio 17:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent deletions

I noticed that Lprcycle (talk • contribs) recently deleted content without explanations; I reinstated it, since it all seemed relevant. Have I missed some discussion about this that hasn't taken place here? --RobertG ♬ talk 15:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ear Training

I added "Aural Skills" to the "Ear Training" heading. It is a more academic term. I opted not to delete "Ear Training" since it is also acceptable.Adam N 22:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that either is a more "academic" term. My school called the class "ear training", others call it aural skills, they are both the same thing. I changed the heading back because it looked sloppy to me, but changed the first sentence to include both of the terms. Mak (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ear training. Or more specifically pitch training (even more raltive and perfect pitch training).--Josh Rocchio 17:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Link To Google Groups

I added an external link to rec.music.theory Usenet newsgroup on Google Groups (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.music.theory). I added it because I think that it can be a very beneficial resource for article readers who have further questions about music theory. If someone has a question, they can post it and someone knowledgeable will answer it. I, myself, have asked numerous questions over the years on rec.music.theory and someone has helped me every time. So I'm sure others will benefit from it.

If anyone has a problem with it, I won't be offended if it is removed. I know Wikipedia is trying to prevent the wiki from becoming a repository for external links. Howevever, no article can be all-encompassing. If an external link is helpful and informative, I can't say that I see a problem with it, particularly if it is non-commercial. Monkeybreath 05:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sight-singing

"Sight-singing — the ability to sing unfamiliar music without assistance"—What, without a zimmerframe? This needs to be reworded, possibly in combination with "sight-reading". Tony 07:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Tony, you were able to restate my previous edit to make a lot more readable... do you have any ideas on how to say this better? I wanted to include that fact that aural skills classes generally include ear training and sight-singing, and that sight-singing is more than just sight-reading: it's vocalizing while sight-reading, in order to train students to be able to know what a musical passage should sound like without actually hearing it. --TobyRush 05:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for Reorganization

I have been meaning for a while to suggest a reorganization for this page. It feels to me to be somewhat meandering through several topics, each of which should (and probably does) have it's own article anyway.

The page suffers, I think, from the same misunderstanding most non-theorists have: that everything taught in a college Music Theory course can be combined into one big discipline labelled "Music Theory." That is, however, untrue: Ear Training, for example, is not Music Theory... it is only considered as such because the Music Theory faculty are invariably the ones to teach it (often in a single class combined with theory).

I'd like to suggest a reorganization of this page to better illustrate this. Part of this may be better achieved by splitting the page into several. Here is what I'm thinking:

Fundamentals of Music

• Pitch
• Rhythm
• Music Notation
• Acoustics
• Melody
• Harmony
• Form

Composition and Analysis

• Common Practice Period Theory
  • Four-Part Writing
  • Roman Numeral Analysis
  • Melody
  • Form
  • Layer Analysis
• Counterpoint
  • Sixteenth-Century Counterpoint
  • Species Counterpoint
• Twentieth-Century Theory
  • Compositional Techniques
  • Set Theory
  • Jazz/Popular Theory
• Compositional Techniques
  • Motivic Development
  • Instrumentation
  • Orchestration

Aural Skills

• Ear Training
  • Interval & Chord Recognition
  • Dictation & Transcription
• Sight-Singing
  • Audiation
  • Sight-Reading

Having a page called "Music Theory" is something of a challenge: should the page be about actual music theory (composition and analysis). or should it be about the curriculum of a usual Music Theory course (including information about fundamentals and aural skills)? I am curious about what you all think of this. As a theory professor, I would love to see this become a much more robust and well-organized page. --Toby Rush ‹ ✆|✍ › 06:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I really like this idea- although I would change around the Composition/Analysis section so it was in chronological order, starting with organum, moving to species, then CPP, then 20th, then jazz/popularAnderfreude 19:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have started a draft with the new organization here. So far I've just copied the existing sections into corresponding sections in your structure. There are many empty sections, and perhaps some topics which are too esoteric, or should be combined. Plenty of room for expansion and editing. —Wahoofive (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed "notation" section discrepancy

I changed the wording of the notation section since it was backwards. Pitches are represented on the VERTICAL (up/down) axis and time progresses along the HORIZONTAL (left/right) axis. Hope nobody minds but it seemed to be backwards.! 164.107.198.219 04:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)BB

[edit] Music theorist

I found it odd that music theorist not only does't have its own article, but that it wasn't mentioned in the music theory article. While it seems obvious that one who does music theory would be a music theorist, it should be mentioned. I took the liberty of introducing it into the introduction. However, I have two thoughts: 1) Whether music theorist should get its own article, instead of just redirecting to theory, and 2) how to do so without reinforcing traditional divisions between music theorists and musicologists. Anderfreude 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically speaking, music theory is a branch of musicology, although many people use the word "musicology" to mean only "music history". I'm not clear why we need a separate page, or even section, about music theorists, however. I can imagine a section devoted to "historical development of music theory" which might mention various important theorists. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the primacy of either music history or music theory to one another- we have music theorists since Ancient Greece, while musicology itself has only been around in its current state of affairs for a little more than a century. After all, people from Pythagoras to Guido of Arezzo to Rameau to Hauptmann to David Lewin have been theorists first, historians second. Music theory and musicology are indeed intertwined disciplines, and most musicologists would consider themselves to be music theorists and vice versa. But someone who is approaching a topic from a music theoretical standpoint would be doing so from a different standpoint than a musicological one, and be coming from a different traditional background. And I believe the difference in approaches warrants a separate (though careful) article.Anderfreude 22:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diatonic and chromatic

The article uses the term "diatonic" without adequate explanation. This term, along with "chromatic", is the cause of serious uncertainties at several other Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged! – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)