Talk:Microtonality

Thelonious Monk

Didn't Thelonious Monk write in quarter-tones?

If he did, I'd love to know about it, because I'm a fan of both Monk and microtones. --Camembert

I think it's in the film Jazz on a Summer's Day that the voice-over (I think) says that Monk hits two notes simultaneously to symbolize the 1/4 tone in between. -- Tarquin

Nevertheless the piano does not have microtones. As a piano player, Monk did not "write in quartertones". In fact: what's more likely than quartertones is that Monk, like uncountable piano players, strikes two keys to suggest blue notes, which, while arguably microtonal when sung or played on instruments capable of inflecting pitch, are not quartertones. I could also argue that blue notes are NOT microtonal, at least not according to any model this article provides, because blue notes aren't of any precisely fixed pitch or interval at all - the very blueness is because of its unfixed nature. This article only talks about microtones being fixed degrees of non-equaltempered scales. I'd like to see how JOASD cited the quartertone claim, which is frankly contrary to what everybody learns in jazz studies. 198.49.180.40 18:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Microtonal

Do you think it might be wise to say that using more than 12 notes (i.e. 19, or 31 notes per octave) isn't necessarily microtonal? The reason for this is that the composer would be aiming to get close to the Just intervals. The rest of the notes are effectively 'scrapped' temparily, so it's not exactly 'microtonal' music (where all the notes are given more or less equal priority). Could anyone confirm this? -- Daniel

This article is biased toward "Just intervals" themselves being microtonal, so, if that's what these composers are aiming for, then that would make them microtonalists. At any rate I reject your thesis: why wouldn't they just use a just-tempered scale/instrument if that's what they're after? Furthermore 1/19 or 1/31 of an octave must necessarily be smaller than a semitone (1/12 of an octave, just, even or ) so again you cannot argue against the microtonality of such scales. 198.49.180.40 18:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I think that even when people are using 19-eq (or whatever) to get close to just intervals, such music still tends to be called "microtonal" (maybe not by the composers of such music, but by the majority of people). My perception is that the word gets slapped on anything which isn't 12 tone equal temperament, no matter how that tuning is used. That makes the term more or less useless, of course, but still, I think that's how it is used. I may be wrong of course. --Camembert

I'd say that "microtonal music" is an academic term. I don't often see non-Western traditional music called microtonal. I also think just intonation music is increasingly being pulled out from the microtonal herd; microtonal music is a diagnosis of exclusion.jp2 01:40 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

You may be right. So what definition of "microtonal" would you give? --Camembert

scale_(music) currently reflects some of my bias: microtonal is based on western music and doesn't include stylistic inflection a la blue notes.jp2 02:19 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

I think pretty much any deliberate use of intervals outside of 12-TET qualifies as some sort of microtonality. The idea is that you are making distinctions finer than usual. As said above, 19tet allows subtly narrower thirds which sound purer, for instance, but even working with 5-TET would probably be called microtonal. The word is widely used like that. I don't think it's a great usage, but it's the one I've seen. It's a blanket word for "non-western tuning", or whatnot. Unfortunately, the word "micro" seems to suggest smaller intervals as a requirement, but this is not really reflected in its usage. (Just intonation is frequently referred to as microtonal, for instance... perhaps justifiably because it makes finer distinctions about harmony than ET?) - Rainwarrior 19:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A microtone is a small interval, smaller than a semitone. Bach used semitones, but we don't call his music semitonal, or chromatic, or whatever. I compose extended JI, and the majority of intervals I use are significantly wider than a whole tone. Microtones crop up in the voice leading, but are not especially prevalent. People will say what people will say, but micro- means very small, and 969 cents is not very small. I am strongly against using a word inaccurately and calling it academic. That just makes academics less likely to take it seriously. Whole tones can be a variety of intervals, semitones can be a variety of intervals but are smaller than whole tones, and microtones are smaller yet. Why would you call a whole tone a microtone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badmuthahubbard (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Black Flag

Can someone confirm the material on Black Flag? Can it be referenced to a reliable source? Thank you.

I'm looking for info on a 59 note bulgarian scale

This article doesn't mention it. Can some expert please fill in?

Perhaps you could tell us where you heard about it, and we could go from there. I've heard Bulgarian music, and seen Bulgarian instruments, but this is the first I've heard of a "59 note scale". 59 notes is kind of unwieldly, and I don't think it could properly be accomodated on their traditional instruments. Perhaps you misunderstood? (Or maybe this is a theoretical distinction I have not heard of.) - Rainwarrior 19:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What about jazz?

Would it make more sense to speak of the history of microtonal music in jazz? Jazz (and blues) musicians have rarely actually adhered to the even tempered 12-tone scale, though perhaps much of this wouldn't be considered microtonal if the notes are just bent/adjusted tones from non-microntonal scales/chords. It just seems odd to make this passing reference to the use of microtones in rock and neglect their greater prominence in jazz...

I'll say here what I wrote above: Blue or bent notes aren't microtones, according to the way this article describes microtonality (scales with intervals smaller than an eventempered semitone). In eventempered rock and jazz, a performer's tremolo moves the pitch of a scale degree (obviously changing the interval), but the scale degree still is of a fixed (meta) pitch. Sure, we can say that blue and bent notes probably are "more prevalent" in jazz than in rock, but, I'd not argue (without evidence) that microtonal scales, compositions and performances are more prevalent in jazz than in rock. Is this what you're arguing? 198.49.180.40 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If something is written about microtonalism in jazz, then certainly Don Ellis should be included. His big band featured Ellis on quarter tone trumpet for some tunes. Also, Neil Haverstick plays some jazz in 19 tet, and possibly other tunings.209.155.42.138 00:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Steve Lantner has worked in this area too, using 2 pianos tuned a quarter tone apart... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.125.54.65 (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Microtonal software

I noticed some links to some microtonal music software. I would like to see my freeware program on this list (but I realize it might be inappropriate to add it myself).

• Intun (Win, freeware)

- Rainwarrior 19:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My Vitriol

Tuning down a quarter step does not qualify as microtonal. The tuning is still 12 tone equal temperament, simply because you tune to a different standard than A440 does not qualify as microtonal. It is still quite normal tuning. - Rainwarrior 19:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're an unaccompanied soloist, then you're quite right. But if you're playing in an ensembnle where everyone else's A is a quartertone off your A-half-flat, and this is a deliberate composed effect, then the piece is microtonal and your notes in combination with the other performers' make up a 24-tone scale. This article clearly describes such ensembles. 198.49.180.40 18:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Triamu

I have added the triamu (3mu) to the History section, in relation to Carillo's 1/8 semitone, since it is now a basic and recognized unit in the tuning of MIDI instruments. (Mu is an ancronymn of Midi unit.) Prof.rick 01:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I figured I'd duplicate the comment I left for you on my talk page here, since it is relevant to the page:

Well, my opinion on the 3mu is that it is quite an obscure term, and your suggested google search only turns up one page that uses it in the context of tuning. That tonalsoft article, and your mention of it are the only mentions of it I have ever seen. Furthermore, I don't see how it relates to MIDI at all, since the MIDI pitch bend is a 14-bit number usually distributed over 4 semitones, giving some 4096 divisions of the semitone. I don't know where this business of 8 comes from.

I removed the mention of 3MU from the history section since it is not of historical significance. If you can explain how it is notable, maybe there's a place for it elsewhere in the article, but to my knowledge no MIDI hardware maker has any kind of 3MU specification (I'd be glad to be proven wrong). - Rainwarrior 04:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

History

This section is oddly sparse. Right now it reads like a mini bio of Carrillo. Why don't we mention Aristoxenus, Ptolemy, Vincenzo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Giuseppe Tartini, Christiaan Huygens, Marin Mersenne, Nicholas Mercator, Charles Ives, Harry Partch, et cetera et cetera (this very article has a ton of links to bio pages)?? I think we should fill this out a lot more, and we don't need to have so much Carrillo in there, that stuff is covered on his own bio page. What we need is an overview of who did what, an overview of the development. We don't need biographies of these people, we need to discuss how they fit in to the ongoing progress of microtonal music. If I ever get the time, I'll write this, but right now I've got a lot of other things on my to-do list, so this is just a suggestion, in case anyone wants to step up and do it. - Rainwarrior 04:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

original research

This article seems to have alot of original research. I noticed in several places wording such as "therefore" and "if we define...".

Also the phrase "severe bias" when referring to this article isn't appropriate. The article should be fixed to remove the bias or explain that it is the common usage of a group of people and that other groups use some other term.-Crunchy Numbers 16:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Also there is lots of history and discussion of controversy and terminolgy but its hard to find the substance. I was looking for this article after taking a doumbek class yesterday where the instructor played Arabic music on the spike fiddle while we accompanied. She explained a little about the scale the music was in that included microtones. I was hoping to find something about the scale so I could try it on guitar and other instruments like thumb piano.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to provide at the top definitions and examples of the most common usage of microtones in Arabic and Indian music and push all the controversy to the bottom? If there is another article with the scales listed then sorry about this.-Crunchy Numbers 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to find any mention or support in any text or dictionary for a great deal of this article. The article concentrates on the idea of equating "microtonal" with "xenharmonic", or "sounding different from Western music". Aside from being offensively Eurocentric, the term "xenharmonic" doesn't seem to be in any published music dictionary, either. If anyone knows of a reference, please post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Zamjatin (talk • contribs) 05:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that this article is woefully under-referenced. For a published dictionary that explains the term "xenharmonic", see John Chalmers and Brian McLaren, "Darreg, Ivor", The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. S. Sadie and J. Tyrrell (London: Macmillan, 2001): "He coined the term ‘xenharmonic’ in 1963 to describe ‘music which sounds unlike that composed in the familiar 12-tone equal temperament’." See also the Wikipedia article Ivor Darreg, which is linked in the present article. Although a few people besides Darreg have used the word, particularly in articles published in the journal Xenharmonikôn (which Darreg founded), it is not so widely recognized a term as the present wording of this Wikipedia article suggests. On the other hand, I do not see how it is "offensively Eurocentric" to point out that most music in the recent (say, 200 years) European past ordinarily assumes this tuning. This is simply a fact.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What is offensive is calling that which is "different from European" strange or foreign. This puts Western Europe at the "center", and assumes it as the "norm". How can that NOT be an offesive idea? I realize that the term was not intended to be taken that way, rather the opposite, Darreg clearly being a xenophile here. Nevertheless... it is the year 2008, or should I say 1429 AH? :-) At any rate, I simply replaced the nonsensical and unreferenced equation of "microtonal" with "xenharmonic", previously found in the definition, with "see xenharmonic". One reason the claim that another definition of "microtonal" is "xenharmonic" is silly, is the fact (noted in the Wiki, don't know by whom or when) that a great deal of "xenharmonic" music is, to use another Darreg neologism, "macrotonal", a fine term for great big scale steps rather than little tiny ones.

Kuhnau dates

He died in 1722. So he can't have written any pieces in the 1730's ... check dates, please. --Tdent 19:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Composer redlinks

What is the point of the redlinks to composers? Do we have some source that asserts their notability? (And if we do, why not start a stub at least?) A name and a birth-year isn't useful information, and how do we know the difference between a redlink that is vanity and one that is not? - Rainwarrior 08:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rainwarrior

I understand your problem, but let me explain my point of view first. Then we may see if we can find some agreement.

Why keeping redlinks of composers you seem to doubt the significance?

Of course Redlinks names by themselves are useless…I don’t deny that. But who said I (or anyone else) wanted to keep them red forever?

Why don’t I create a page about them ?

Well, who told you I wasn’t planning it. I was indeed! Do you know who filled the redlinks of composers such as Pascale Criton or Jean-Etienne Marie lately? Me…(btw anyone that can correct my English in those articles is welcome)

So I consider these redlinks are temporally. And they will be filled in time. But I do it when I can.

I really was planning to fill all these red links. I don’t know all of these names but I intended to make some research about them.

As for names such as Matther, Stahnke or Mandelbaum (especially these ones) I can assure you, they are important names. And I have to add Alain Bancquart and Jack Beherens as well.

No offence but I am surprised -if you’re into microtonal music and you’re Canadian- that you never heard of Bruce Matther who is by far one of the most important Canadian microtonal composers along with his disciple Jack Behrens. Because here in Europe these guys are regarded as important composers in the microtonal circle.

Moreover Matther was the disciple of microtonal Pioneer Ivan Wyschnegradsky and he writes music in direct continuation of Wyschnegradsky.

Greetings

Frédérick Duhautpas 12:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Btw concerning the link Cris Forster, I noticed there was a Wiki page dedicated to him that has been removed for some reasons...

Frédérick Duhautpas 12:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're working on filling in missing pages. Can I ask why you think a redlink should be up before the article? Some of these links have been here for months. If the article comes first, notability doesn't become an issue, and there will be no problems with vanity redlinks.

Actually, I have heard of Bruce Mather, but not specifically as a microtonalist. My removal of these redlinks isn't based on whether I've heard of them, or whether I think they are important. I removed them because their notability has yet not been asserted anywhere on Wikipedia. There are cases where redlinks are quite appropriate, such as in the body of a text that indicates its importance, but in a place like this where it's just a list, I don't think they are.

(And as for the Cris Forster page, it existed briefly, twice, and then was deleted. The reason the first time was that Cris himself wrote the page, and the second time I believe it was because of the assumption of sockpuppetry involved in its recreation. Creating that page a third time is not out of the question, though.)

- Rainwarrior 18:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Copy vio?

There is a large section of another text inserted at the beginning of the terminology section, with a link to it's source. I can't find any indication that the author of the text gave permission to use it, but it seems to have survived in the article for quite a while. Does anyone know the status of this?

Even if this isn't copyvio, it definately doesn't fit with the style of the rest of the article, and needs some rewriting. --Starwed 12:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm removing that section, since no one has defended it. If it's actually included with appropriate permissions, please tidy it up a bit before putting it back in. ^_^ --Starwed 04:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Debussy?

Debussy was not a microtonal composer. I think one mention of him is worth making, to distinguish non-diatonic music from microtonality, but whoever wrote the terminology section has some kind of fixation in the matter. Giamberardino 16:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole definition as muddled. I have never seen quarter tones excluded from microtonality anywhere else. It's definitely used to mean "non 12-TET" quite frequently, but the phrase "conventional Western music" should not be used as a synonym for 12-TET. I would not include Debussy as a microtonalist since his pitches were chosen directly from standard tuning (as well, he is hardly ever restricted to just 6 pitches; it practice he usually uses a set of 6 for a short passage then switches, or uses it for a melody with accompaniment that takes whatever harmony is appropriate, etc.). We might as well also call Bach a microtonalist because of his frequent obsession with diminished seventh chords (we could very well call Bach a microtonalist for other reasons though). Other comments like "constant restlessness of the dominant seventh" are vague and overly general, not useful at all. This terminology section needs a rewrite from scratch. - Rainwarrior 16:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Indian Music revisited

I'd like to bring in that the relevant info on Indian music is so sparse and put in a blind corner, that no enlightenment of the subject can be found here. It seems hardly relevant. And that while these very rich musical traditions offer interesting observations about 'microtonality'. Since in Indian Classical Music (ICM) a wide variety of scales are in use, in which the 6 mutable tones (fifth/Pa is basically fixed) can have very distinct and characteristic positions it would already qualify as 'microtonal'. But there is much more to it than just having a lot variant scales. To sum up some characteristics:

- tuning of string instruments is done to a level of microtonal precision. Indian string instruments have a sound particularly rich in harmonics, and tuning is done on a high resolution level of harmonic resonance. Even in tuning the four-string tanpura the 4th/Ma can have variant degrees for different ragas. Very often pure fifth relations can be found in the notes used: if the second tone/Re is particularly low, the flattened 6th is also in a very low position to pure-parallel (sound as a 3rd, 6th,12th harmonic of the lower tone. The more 5th-parallels there are in a scale, the more resonant and consonant it will be. Of course, other ragas exist in which this consonance is lacking, which is a significant way of expressing particular moods of anxiety.

- microtonal ornamentation can be found on different levels. One is 'timbre-modulation' and is available mostly to vocalists, the other is a continuous fluent, legato tonal movement, called 'meend'. Meend is any fluent movement from one pitch to an other - but don't think sleezy glissando's here - it is an exact movement between the fixed pitches and there is a very extensive vocabulary for it for every raga. To be more precise, as it is not generally found in recent western music, it is a very specific and controlled way of moving around between the notes. For easy comparison: it is exactly what a keyboard-instrument can not do - it can only render block-print. Compare that to Baroque handwriting with many elegant slurs and curls - a whealth of diversity opens up! Indian music is like a calligraphy of continuously modulated sound. Calligraphers and vocalists practice years and years on getting the shapes of their curls and slurs just right. Interestingly, a parallel that presents itself from Western culture is 'Gregorian Chant' as we know it from 10th century manuscripts which use a graphic system of neumes (sign of the hand) which also makes use of precisely shaped 'meends' comprising 2,3 or many notes.

If this kind of information is to be found anywhere, it should be here on WIKI. Says I, of course... what say you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martin spaink (talk • contribs) 22:39, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

1/4 comma meantone

1/4 comma meantone is NOT identical with 31 equal, it only comes CLOSE. strictly speaking: it uses the interval 5/4, which 31 equal does NOT! huygens took 1/4 comma meantone as a starting point for his suggested 31 equal, but his mathematics are substantially different. we must go for precision in this article: my suggestion.Kmbemb 23:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

distinction threshold

does anyone know the minimum difference in pitch able to be detected by a human? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.164.231 (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No. There are many tests, but they are tests, not real-life playing and listening situations, so the best anyone could honestly claim would be something like "within x cents in such and such tests". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Zamjatin (talk • contribs) 05:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, melodically, the smallest pitch diffrence a human can percieve is about 6 cents, although that is subject to change depending on other factors.

Harmonicly, no tests have ever been done, but it is deffinitley way lower than 6 cents.

I have found a diffrence of 0.01 hz to be un-noticable, but I don't know where the line is drawn exactly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.112.132 (talk) 15:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Montpelier Ms. letter notation

The graf

As Joel Mandelbaum has pointed out in his PhD thesis "Multiple Division Of the Octave and the Tonal Resources of the 19 Tone Temperament" (1960), scholarship done on the Montpellier Codex suggests that it records microtonal tunings, probably the Greek enharmonic. Thus the evidence appears to show that microtonal tunings survived and were commonly used late into the medieval period.

has two problems, IMO.

• The first is procedural: one source does not make a "Thus...common."

• The second is, in fact, that there are any number of interpretations of the figures dispersed withing the letter notation of the mss. I will add that information soon.

Best, --Shlishke (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up

"Xenharmonic" is a related term, not an alternative definition of "microtonal". If there are any references (textbooks, dictionaries, peer-reviewed journals) supporting this idea, they need to be listed. Otherwise, all definitions of and speculations as to what is and what is not "xenharmonic" need to be in the "xeharmonic" wiki, not in the "microtonal" wiki.

In addition, microtonalities which are an essential part of various musical traditions around the world need to be mentioned, by someone qualified to do so. The Indian concept of "meend" is an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Zamjatin (talk • contribs) 09:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

slowly but surely still cleaning up

In answer to Jerome Kohl's question "Has any previous editor of this article actually *read* Aristoxenos", the answer is, at least one has read enough, and enough about, to know that this statement: "Of the tuning of ancient Greek music we have a comprehensive record, courtesy of Aristoxenos' surviving texts on music." needs to be removed.

The bit about ancient Greek music has now been stripped down to the basics that can be found in any dictionary or text on the subject. It needs to be expanded, but not in a "personal essay" manner. Wikipedia is not the place to continue the time-honored but nonetheless bogus tradition of justifying or otherwise shining a glamorous light on one's own theories by interpreting the scant hard evidence on ancient Greek music to taste in order to create an illusion of royal lineage.

Took out the spam in the Electronica section, as well as the request for a citation on the general comment about alternative tunings and electronica. The link to Jim Aikin's article I added should hopefully be enough (the statement as it now stands would hardly be challenged by anyone familiar with the field). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Zamjatin (talk • contribs) 11:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/208.65.189.188

http://nonoctave.com/forum/messages/762.html?n=1

- Mireut (talk) 12:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Reinstating the "other" definition of "microtonal"

I put the secondary definition of "microtonal" back in, but without directly equating "microtonal" with "xenharmonic". Please see The New Grove 1st ed. (ISBN 1-56159-174-2) vol.12 p. 279 on microtonal music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Zamjatin (talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

At the request of Gwalla

Editor Gwalla has asked that eight items on this page which have the hidden-text comments usual on Wikipedia (explaining the nature of needed missing references) be announced here. I was responsible for putting those eight calls for reference (as well as some others that seem self-evident), so I suppose it is my responsibility to comply with Gwalla's request. Please consider them announced.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Warning of pending erasures....

The "Usage" section has been there a long time, without citations. Quite clearly a bit of "original research". It's not that I disagree with it, or don't think it could be a very nice section, but it is not appropriate to this page as it is. This is just a notification that if it's not referenced fairly soon it will be removed. Frank Zamjatin (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tonraum30.11-14 1.jpg

The image Image:Tonraum30.11-14 1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Open Directory Project Links

The DMOZ search template, and by implication all DMOZ search links, is being considered for deletion because it violates WP:ELNO #9. Anyone interested in discussing the fate of Open Directory Project (DMOZ) search links is invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Dmoz2. Qazin (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Guys, please keep discussions out of HTML comments. Use talkpages for that. HTML comments should only be used in very rare circumstances as rationales for certain pieces of information or markup, to ward off likely edit warring. There is almost never a need for paragraph-length comments. — Gwalla | Talk 17:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Please revert to my last version. The instrument is microtonal and clearly visible on a lot of youtube clips. There seems to be some confusement how to use youtube as a source. In this case a list of youtube links to point out what the instrument is constructed like is a proper reliable way to use the medium. 83.87.170.234 (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

All right, fair enough. I see that Gwalla has removed the hidden-text comment (which indeed I placed there "to ward off likely edit warring") with the suggestion that it really belongs here on the talk page, but has not actually copied it here. I do so now:

The youtube video link once offered here is (1) not a reliable source unless the video can be traced to a reliable publisher Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_IRC.2C_MySpace.2C_and_YouTube_reliable_sources.3F, and (2) the video does not verify either that TAP made the modifications to their instruments visible in the video, nor that their intention was to "explore unexpected soundtextures", nor that the bass guitar's musical scale is "changed".

Perhaps 83.87.170.234 would care to explain why this particular item is not subject to the same conditions as other Youtube videos, namely "may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be traced to a reliable publisher, but even then should be used with caution." I made a good-faith effort to find a publisher of the video in question, but the best I could come up with was the accompanyting information on Youtube, that the video was"directed by Sebastian Ischer director of photography: Andrei Zakow Produced by: Gillian Robespierre", plus the misleading suggestion that the video is "from Taro Tarot CD EP", which a little research reveals is on the Hoss label, HOSS016. If in fact this audio CD also includes this video (the Hoss catalog does not mention it), then I will withdraw my objection straight away, since this would constitute archived status as specified at Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources. This does not address the question of verifying the other points, however.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't get the point. 1) the instrument excists (agree?). 2) the instrument is microtonal, because there is a rod which alters the fret ratios (right?). Both facts can be easily verified on the youtube clips. No point of discussion about who filmed it. The band excist, multiple video's have been made of them, by several anonymous filmers though, but that's not the issue. The band plays a microtonal modified bass guitar. All facts are true and falsifiable. As I notice in many contributions before, Jerome. You certainly have a lot knowledge about classical music, but not on how you should source in a scientific way. Appeal to authority is a fallacy, rejecting Youtube, because it is youtube is also not very good. You are an expert in art related knowledge, but falsifiable is falsifiable and therefore true and no OR. This is falsifiable so the {fact} is useless. Just watch and that's enough to agree and conclude a ball is round. If you disagree on 1) or 2) in the first sentence please reply and I'll explain you more about what happens on microtonal level when you add a rod. Further on to explain what is going on visit http://www.myspace.com/thesearepowers, (their official website, no other excists), where they incorporate their video's, including this one http://www.vimeo.com/1402580 by Jacqueline Castel, which is a video made for the band and in which the instrument also appears. 83.87.170.234 (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidently I do not get "the point"—if indeed there is one. If by #1 you mean, "do I agree that there is such a thing as a bass guitar?" then the answer is, obviously, yes. If on the other hand you mean "Do I agree that a microtonally modified bass guitar exists and is used by this group?", then I would have to say it is not proven by this Youtube video—nor is any music video likely to do so. You do see the most extraordinary things in them: vanishing and reappearing instruments, one singer suddenly dividing into dozens of duplicates, bands performing while standing atop a crop-dusting biplane in flight, etc. For all I can tell, the performers in that video may be lip-synching to the CD without functional instruments at all. As for #2, apart from the objections already raised, no, I cannot agree that the instrument is microtonal simply because there is a rod added to it. This requires documentation, and neither "fact" is verified by any video or photograph.

Moving on to your next point, I did not mean to suggest that knowing who made the video was germaine; quite the contrary, that this data was all I could find in the direction of authenticating the archived status of this video. You say, "All facts are true and falsifiable." How very positivistic of you—not to mention tautological. You have defined what makes a fact a fact, and then proven that it is so. (In logic, this is called "deducing the first hypothesis", or something like that.) Still, I take your point, that if something is to be accepted as fact, it ought to be demonstrably so, in a logical construction that allows for the possibility of disproving the claim. I do not see how a Youtube video helps to establish such a situation. The reason that Appeal to Authority is a fallacy is that it tries to avoid falsifiability. Appealing to Youtube is not exactly Appeal to Authority, but it is no different in terms of falsifiability. "Just watching" is one of the first approaches rejected by positivism: the data must be tested. Ordinarily, I am reluctant on Wikipedia to call attention to my credentials, since we are all equal here, but as you suggest that I do not know "how you should source in a scientific way", I feel obliged to point out that part of my job for sixteen years as the managing editor of a scholarly journal was to vet sources, and my education in musicology and music theory included extensive training in both proper documentation and logic. Perhaps your training is superior to mine, in which case I would be pleased to learn of it.

Finally, "Just watch and that's enough to agree and conclude a ball is round" really gave me a good chuckle, thank you. The first things that came to mind were American football, rugby, and bowls (all of which use balls that are far from round; well, "spherical", to be accurate—they all have at least some circular cross-sections)! Of course that is really beside the point. Trusting "what you see" to prove something depends on so many things that it is meaningless. The earth is obviously flat, right? You can see it! This is one reason why Wikipedia insists it cannot itself be treated as a reliable source, and that every article must therefore direct the reader to such reliable sources, not so much as an "appeal to authority" as a pointer to information more reliable than randomly selected subjective opinions.

I like your suggestion of the TAP website, which I have visited. It would be a source preferable to a Youtube video, despite its (one supposes intentionally) chaotic appearance. Unfortunately, searches for "microtone", "microtonal", "tuning", and even "bass" fails to turn up as much as a single hit.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll wait for the first interview I'll find online in which they explain why they work with altered scales. I understand TAP sounds somewhat noisy and therefore will not be accepted so clearly in a topic about microtones. The rod however causes a different scale, whether you believe it or not. (There is a source for that aspect -> the book of Yates) 83.87.170.234 (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I found one interview mentioning the preparation. http://www.vancarr.com/?p=42

SFBG: How do you prepare your bass?

PN: I have a dowel rod under the strings. I tune it to this non-standard range. You have this thing called A440 that you base your tuner on. We’re totally out of that range. For me, it’s very fulfilling to play this way because I can still get new life out of the same instrument. I can play it like a guitar, a saxophone, or a voice. That’s the funnest part of it, to go crazy. It’s a combination of letting your subconscious and condition lead the way and playing what you think sounds cool. For us, it’s trying to fit crazy sounds into a song format without traditional structure.83.87.170.234 (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Much better! That will do very nicely!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

maqam

It seems to me a significant gap that Arab music and maqam is only mention in 'See Also'. Not that I'm qualified to make the additions. Dlabtot (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This article doesn't sufficiently represent world music, and this should be corrected. However, it occurs to me that the term "microtone" itself assumes the Western 12-TET scale as a basis for comparison, so I'm not sure whether this puts the article outside of NPOV.BrutishBloodGod (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Usage

I like that this section is getting expanded, but it's definitely starting to fall under WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.BrutishBloodGod (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean that it is starting to resemble a textbook, not that it is beginning not to resemble a textbook. Hyacinth (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes.BrutishBloodGod (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, BrutishBloodGod? The recent expansion (still only a single paragraph long) was made by me in response to a well-justified "clarify" tag added by your good self. In what way is this now "textbook-ish"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I mean to say that the paragraph (and article) as it stands is jargon-heavy and, even with wikilinks, not comprehensible without a moderate understanding of certain music theory topics. This was the case as well prior to recent edits, which have (and this includes my own edits) added important content but also exacerbated the overall textbookishness. I just wanted to note my opinion of something we should watch out for in future edits.BrutishBloodGod (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Long-established text aside, I would suppose the "jargon" terms in the recent addition I made would be "diatonic chordal relations", "chromatic progressions", "closed circle of nineteen fifths", "modulating sequence", "minor thirds", and "transposed repetition". These all are paraphrased from the cited source. Perhaps it would be helpful to link some terms, such as "diatonic", "chromatic", and "circle of fifths", but if you can come up with more transparent language that says the same thing (I am unable to think of any ways of doing this myself), please feel free to make substitutions.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove

How, why, where? Hyacinth (talk) 14:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you check the edit history, back in February of 2009 an anonymous editor removed "a gazillion" specific calls for citations in favour of this blanket "refimprove" banner. It would be a fairly simple task to restore those citation-needed tags to any of that material that might still be in the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

Aside from the two topics mentioned briefly above (xenharmonic & Aristoxenos). What, why, where, and how does this article need to be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have gone back to that earlier version. It turns out that "a gazillion" means precisely 48 calls for citation or clarification that were removed at that time in favour of that blanket banner. The great majority have been addressed in the meantime, though eight or ten have not. I have restored these specific tags, which were almost all in the "History" section. That section also bears an "essaylike" banner, and the other sections look reasonably good to me, so the general cleanup banner at the head of the article seems unnecessary.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

John Corigliano

In the lists of microtone composers, and indeed in this entire article, why is there no mention of John Corigliano? (ex. Symphony No. 1 and Chiaroscuro) Bradtwotrees (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Are they microtonal, in any but incidental ways?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually it should be Symphony No. 2 in which the final movement begins in microtonal textures. As for Chiaroscuro, it is a piece for two pianos, tuned a microtone apart, so no, it is not incidental but the very nature of the work. --B0cean (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Proper references

Proper references, please. No more personal essay stuff, please. I left some "personal essay" passages (Vincento for example) in because they can easily be referenced and shown to be sound statements. If this material is not properly referenced soon (and I cannot promise that I will have the time to do so), it must, by the standards of Wikipedia (not to mention fair intelligent discourse) be removed.Frank Zamjatin (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

While on the whole I applaud your bold action, you also removed the Easley Blackwood n-equal material, which I thought was well-referenced. What was your reasoning there?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

oh, one further thought: Shouldn't the items in the list of References be removed, if they support only now-deleted material?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that referenced material of Blackwood's should certainly be incorporated into the article, but I was unable to untangle it from the dubious material in which it was lodged. Hopefully I'll never be under the knife of surgeon so ruthless, now that you mention it... I trust that those with, or with access to, the Blackwood book will insert a clean and pointed paragraph about various equal divisions.

I was under the impression that the very purpose of the current construction of the reference list (I see you corrected my formatting) was to enable the presentation of reference material not necessarily found in the article, as well as to allow multiple references to a single book without creating a vast repetitive list. Frank Zamjatin (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I shall have to take a look at the "dubious material" but, since I was the one who revised and cited the pre-existent Blackwood matter in 2009, you may understand my pique—I do not write "essays", and I reference everything (I have on occasion been accused of providing too many references). I do have access to both Blackwood sources (his book was not cited directly, but his 1991 article from Perspectives of New Music was—twice), and in fact wrote that passage with them open on the desk in front of me, but it is possible that I allowed a flourish to creep in somewhere. However, re-reading it now, it looks like every word after the opening two sentences (referenced to Partch 1979) is supported by Blackwood's article, though I will have to go back and make a word-by-word assessment before restoring it. I also own a copy of Partch's book, and will do the same for the opening sentences (I don't think I wrote those, but may have added the reference to pre-existing material). Thank you for your "ruthless knife". I trust you will not be offended if I proceed in like fashion.

As far as the formats are concerned, I believe you are correct about the advantages of parenthetical referencing. If you are not comfortable or familiar with the format, please just add things as best you can, and other hands will come along by and by to make them consistent with the format used here (which is Chicago Style, or at least one variant of it).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the material I sliced was mine, but, as yours was, it was worked into, or a rewriting of, pre-existing material which I felt had fundamental problems. Of course I won't be offended if you're ruthless, it's a quality article we're after. "Microtonalism" is a magnet for flat-earthers and those wielding Atlantean crystals, so to speak, and the mainstream typically has little to say on the subject, unfortunately tolerating bogosities as great as those perpetrated by kooks: see Taruskin's description of Partch's system as "unequally tempered". (!) Frank Zamjatin (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you forgot to mention self-promoting garage bands who claim to be playing microtones intentionally, when in fact they are simply not able to play in tune! Seriously, though, one difficulty with the criticism of "essay-like" writing is that the quoted sources are often essays themselves. For example, Blackwood's opinions about the characteristics of various n-equal temperaments may be seen as whimsical, even though, as a respected authority in the field, his views are eminently citable. Do you think it advisable in this case to give direct quotations, in order to avoid a paraphrase that may seem "essay-like"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather alarmingly, I'd often rather hear incompetent garage bands than excellent 12-tET piano sonatas these days, probably because of the inescapable "autotuned" 12-tET pop coming out of "every speaker everywhere all the time". At any rate, I think you're right that we should cite the essay-like quotes as quotes.

We also have problems of.... moral? dimensions. Barbour, for example, is a recognized authority, and his writing is scholarly. But, there is a Barbour essay (which I have somewhere, have to find the reference to give you) on temperament which is, viewed coldly, more than a little suggestive of a thinnly-disguised hysterical rant cursing all that dares to question the sanctity of 12-tET. And, surely I am not the only one harboring the suspicion that he spent little if any time actually working, by ear, with any of the various tunings he discusses. Although logic precludes the argument from authority, we must honestly concede that there is in reality more than a little of trust in authority in scholarship. So: hmmmmmm..... We also have those whose authority in the realm of microtonality is definitely recognized in the "mainstream", Carillo and Partch, the only avowed microtonalists, as far as I know, to be discussed in Taruskin's History of Everything According to Mr. T. (you know the volumes to which I refer). No suspicion of close-minded ignorance hiding behind good scholarship in these cases; these were practising microtonal musicians. Yet, as Taruskin so gleefully suggests in his entertainingly evil way, as composers these two are, by the standards of the Western art music tradition.... perhaps we should take this in private discussion. :-)

In sum, especially in this problematic field, we cannot help but to exercise a great deal of essaying and critical opinion of sources by simply including or excluding material. Frank Zamjatin (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

For some reason, tuning theory does seem to bring out the zealot in even the most cautious scholar, and this is true not only in recent times. I do know of Taruskin's opus, though I have not actually held one of its volumes in my hand, let alone read any of it. I am surprised to hear that he left Hába out entirely from his discussion of those "whose authority is recognised in the mainstream" though it would have been more difficult to suggest that Hába could not compose "according to the standards of the Western art music tradition" (which is by no means the only way of writing excellent music). Of course you are perfectly correct about scholarly authorities, and it is entirely in accord with the scholarly tradition that the position of one authority should be challenged by another. On Wikipedia, this may be reflected by the actions of different editors putting forward the authorities they believe to be most reliable and, where differences of opinion on such matters arise, calling upon a broader editorial community for consensus. This still doesn't mean that "truth" will prevail (only "verifiability" is allowed to do that on Wikipedia), but at least the invective will have been subjected to scrutiny.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Do you think it's about time to remove the "cleanup" tag? As the article stands, it's not bad at all. Frank Zamjatin (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Certainly it is still capable of improvement (the remaining "citation needed" tags, for example), but much improved, on the whole. I think something about Blackwood needs to be re-inserted (presently, he is found only in the list of miscellaneous composers, and surely his writings on the subject merit more than this). There are few if any articles on Wikipedia that could not be improved, but I agree that the "cleanup" tag should be reserved for the most flagrant examples, and this is no longer one of them.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Could you put in some kind of neutral "QED" statement to the effect "there are many equal divisions...", then put in the Blackwood quotes? Another thing missing is Bohlen-Pierce, but that's a strange one, because I can't think of any of the more or less younger generation I know who has studied composition with an electronic bent, or even just a good introduction to Pd, Max, etc., who hasn't heard of BP, yet I can't recall ever having coming across it in the more sombre tomes we like to use as references. Perhaps simply a link to the wiki page would be enough.Frank Zamjatin (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Reqaudio

What kind of audio files would we like on the page? Hyacinth (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Order of "Pioneers," "Composers," and "Researchers"

I find that the order, which apparently is in chronological birth order, to be illogical and confusing to read. None of these lists are really addressing when these people started "pioneering" or "composing" or "researching" microtonal music. Such a list, if so desired, would be possible to do albeit very tedious to put together. That would require substantial time in researching and then reordering the list. And then there would also be the sticky point, does one make a list by completion or publication date of the composition? If the intended information was to give a sense of when microtonality was pioneered, composed, or researched, it really fails. Just because a microtonalist was born earlier than someone else does not mean that that person should be earlier on the timeline. Makes no sense at all and does not follow good practice.

I propose that each of these three lists be re-ordered alphabetically according to last name. That would be more logical and understandable for those who are perusing these lists. Even the major composer dictionaries and encyclopedias (ex. Groves, New Harvard) by definition do not do a chronological listing but an alphabetical one. The lists in this topic should also so be listed. --B0cean (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Varese?

What qualifies Varèse as a "quarter-tone pioneer"? I can only recall a few bars in the original version of "Amériques", which he later deleted, and his electronic compositions (Déserts, Poème électronique). (But do they qualify as micro-tonal? They are not quarter-tone, that's for sure.) -- megA (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea who put in that comment, but it is certainly inaccurate, and should be removed in favour of the default for the section heading "microtonal pioneers". Thanks for bringing attention to this error.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Myster Shadow-Sky

We are curious to know why the composer Myster Shadow-Sky who discovered starting in 1982 (with his piece Ourdission) a huge amount of nonoctave scales is periodically banned from the "Recent microtonal composers" list? His work shows him as a pioneer concerning the harmonic nonoctave scales and the new harmony resulting from his Nonoctave Scalar Field Theory. More than 250 shadow-sky scales available for free download for composers and musicians to create a new music sound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.23.245.10 (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Microtonality and microtonalism

I noticed in this discussion a word 'microtonality', but in the article which this discussion relates to, there is no 'microtonality'. Instead I found there in the body of the article 'microtonalism', despite the article is categorized as 'microtonality'. From this mishmash arose my question: is 'microtonality' synonym for 'microtonalism'? Can someone explain what is 'microtonality' (and does it have something common with 'tonality') directly in the WP article? Olorulus (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"Microtonalism" strikes me as less idiomatic in English than "microtonality", but this may be debatable. The definition of "microtonailty" is given in the first sentence of the article: "Microtonal music is music using microtones—intervals of less than an equally spaced semitone." It has nothing to do with tonality, atonality, bitonality, or any similar terms. On the face of it, this should be simple enough, but in fact there is some disagreement about whether (for example) non-equal-tempered (diatonic or chromatic) tunings constitute "microtonal" practice and, if not under ordinary circumstances, when do the deviations from 12-equal become so extreme as to qualify for "microtonal" status.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You imply that 'microtonality' is a synonym of 'microtonal music', right? If so, then it would be very useful to extend the definitive section of the main article, something like: 'Microtonal music, or microtonality, (or microtonalism?) is music using microtones - intervals of less etc., to avoid confusion. At present form, any reader knowing (the very long and rich) tradition of 'tonality', would imply (as I did) the meaningful link of 'tonality' with 'microtonality' in some theoretic (though completely obsure) sense. Olorulus (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is not quite a synonym, though the difference is probably too small to worry about ("microtonality" could include, for example, purely theoretical systems, whereas "microtonal music" could be taken to refer more narrowly to an actual repertory of performable compositions). I see that I made the assumption of synonymity without realizing it, when I quoted that opening sentence as a definition of "microtonality". Although I think the confusion with "tonality" in its various senses as "systems of tone relations" is less likely to occur in English than in some other languages (we often use "tone" as a synonym for "note" or "pitch", for example), your point is well taken, and it is a very simple matter to add these alternative terms to the opening sentence for clarity.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for paying attention to the non-English-speaking readers. Also, please keep in mind, that the article is categorized within 'Microtonality', but in the article itself the section title is 'Microtonalism', without definition of either. Olorulus (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to change those section headings from "microtonalism" (which I am having some trouble finding in actual use) to "microtonality" (which is used almost everywhere in English sources). If anyone can prove me wrong, I am happy to let them revert those headings but, as you point out, the category is "microtonality", not "microtonalism".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for changing this! Would you also add directly in the article a thesis you mentioned above, that microtonality has nothing to do with what is explained in this WP as 'tonality'. Otherwise, it is temptative (not only 'for a Russian', I'm afraid) to click the hyperlink and get confused. Olorulus (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good idea. However, I think it may also be necessary to mention those writers who do try to explain "tonalities" involving microtonal intervals. I cannot imagine any English-speaking readers thinking the term "microtonality" would mean a weak form of tonality, but perhaps this is different for readers coming from a different language base.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I can't know how readers coming from different language base feel. There are dozens of words (not only musicological terms) that use the productive mechanics micro+essential word, or macro+essential word (let me spare examples, please). The word 'microtonality' therefore can easily be percepted inside this trend (micro+tonality), but in effect it comes from 'microtone', as though it would be (hypothetically) 'semitonality' derivating from 'semitone', or 'tonality' in the meaning of the Chernomor's mystical scale (Glinka). Other authors like Italian and Spanish, who use 'microtonalism', or Germans who might feel uncomfortably with Mikrotonalität (I never saw this in German special literature, but maybe I'm wrong), they just try to avoid the described ambiguity. Olorulus (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The main aim of Olorulus appearance in discussed article

A teacher of user Olorulus was Kholopov who invented the chimeric word микрохроматика (microchromatics), but nobody has ever called any microtone as микрохром (microсhrome). Therefore, along with the penetration to the Russian-language musicology the necessity to discuss microtones, naturally is used word микротоника (microtonicism) displacing Kholopov's absurd микрохроматика.

User Olorulus is hard working over censorship Russian language Wiki, advertising himself, Kholopov and prolonging life a dying микрохроматика, so his aim was to push into English Wiki article as many mentions of the stupid word as will be allowed here. --93.76.31.226 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hába and microtonal music

Alois Hába indeed used terms for other microintervals, but in the cited sources (shown with precise bibliographic data) he described specifically "čtvrttónové soustavě". Quarter-tone-system was seemingly prevalent for practical composition in the defined time and defined regions. Also, in several editions of the very popular in German-speaking area Riemann Musiklexikon until recent Brockhaus-Riemann (1995) there is only 'Vierteltonmusik' article (in which also other microtones are mentioned), but no 'Sechsteltonmusik', 'Zwölfteltonmusik' or whatever. If you recognize this, then please clarify, what do you see wrong with the citation for "čtvrttónové soustavě". For an evaluation of the view on Hába as 'quarter-tone-composer' that time the evidence from Lotte Kallenbach-Greller might be helpful:

Schließlich komme ich zum wichtigsten, weil konsequentesten Vertreter der Vierteltonmusik, der es sich zur Aufgabe gestellt hat, nur in Vierteltönen zu komponieren: Alois Hába. Er lebt in Prag, leitet dort eine Kompositionsklasse für Vierteltonmusik und ist, wenn mir die Parallele noch einmal erlaubt sein mag, der Vicentino unserer Zeit, nur mit dem Unterschied... usw.

Lotte Kallenbach-Greller, Die historischen Grundlagen der Vierteltöne // Archiv für Musikwissenschaft 8 (1927), S.484.

Olorulus (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I may not have phrased my question clearly. In popular usage, "quarter tone" has been used for centuries to refer loosely to any interval smaller than a semitone. Was this the way Hába was using "čtvrttónové soustavě" (quarter-tone system) in the cited article? I do not have access to the Czech article, and the German one will take some time to obtain. The only issue here is whether he is using the term generically for all microtones, or whether he means exactly what he says: quarter tones = semitones divided into two parts. If this is the case, then his "quarter tone" is not an alternative term for "microtone", since it does not refer also to sixth tones, twelfth tones, etc.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not intended to be an alternative of 'microtonal music' (how could it in 1910th when there was no such term but the 'systematische Vorstellung' was). But quarter-tone music is definitely the most important incarnation (practical and theoretical) of what has been later defined in USA as 'microtonal music'. May I ask you to edit the passage in question to make it clear? Anyway, one will have to edit my 'contribution' :)) Olorulus (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. This suggests that the reference really belongs in the article Quarter tone rather than in a section of this article beginning "Terminology other than 'microtonal' is used by some theorists and composers." Of course it would be possible to expand this section to include all sorts of terms for particular sub-semitonal or "non-standard" intervals ("enharmonic diesis", "septimal seventh", etc.), but it seems to me that this would be going too far in a section focussed on alternative terms used by authors who did not care for "microtone" or "microtonal:. Hába is already mentioned, briefly, in the "history" section. Assuming it is relevant to this article (and I personally believe that it is), shouldn't this reference be placed there, together with references to his discussion of other specific intervals (in the "třetinotónové", "šestinotónové", and "dvanáctinotónove" soustavy, for example)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I already asked you to make an appropriate edit. You would do it definitely better that I can. The thing I just want to point out that the phenomenon now described as 'microtonal music' was earlier known in German-speaking science and encyclopedias as 'Vierteltonmusik' by its predominant kind of microinterval. Please check the article 'Vierteltonmusik' in Riemann Musiklexikon (12te Aufl., Sachteil, 1967, S.1052) and Brockhaus-Riemann (1995), you will see that other microintervals are also mentioned there, and of course Hába did mention other 'soustavě' made of them. But he taught 'Kompositionsklasse für Vierteltonmusik' and he was considered then to be a person who was obsessed with idea 'nur in Vierteltönen zu komponieren'. In MGG1 article 'Atonalität' you will again read, for example, "Einer der Liebhaber der Atonalität, der im übrigen mehr als Vorkämpfer der (damit liierten) Vierteltonmusik bekannt geworden ist, Alois Hába, macht aus dieser Formlosigkeit ausdrücklich einen Programmpunkt" usw. (MGG 1, Bd.1 (1949), S.764).

Nevertheless, he nowadays would be definitely called 'microtonal composer', and not a 'quartertonal composer'. Maybe it is worth to make the description of this 'German case' (Vierteltonmusik as the Hauptwort for what now called microtonal music) a separate section of the article? Olorulus (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that such a detailed discussion of foreign terms has no place in a section on "Terminology", presented before any discussion of the subject of the article. It has taken me a few days, but I have now got a clearer idea of the history of these terms in English, though even this is probably too arcane a subject to present so early in the article. I am proved correct that "quarter tone" was once used (in English) loosely for what is today called "microtonality", but at first I had some trouble finding a source. There are many writers in the late 19th century who use "quarter tone" with precision, particularly in the areas of ethnomusicology and the acoustics of music. However, in a short report published in 1877, Alexander J. Ellis states, "I find that musicians are apt to call any interval smaller than a semitone a quarter tone", and I have found one further article from about the same time that confirms Ellis's statement. On the other hand, the emergence of the term "microtonality" (whether in English or in any other language) is not yet clear. There was tremendous interest during the second half of the 19th century in music of the Indian subcontinent, and considerable debate about whether it is proper to refer to the sruti as a quarter tone or not. The earliest use I have found so far of the word "microtone" is in 1912 (two years before the earliest citation in the OED), but the article disparages the "widespread use" of the word. This suggests that, amongst ethnomusicologists at least, by 1912 "microtonal" and/or "microtonality" had already been in use for some time. However, because I have not yet found an example in English, I am beginning to suspect it may be that the German word Mikrotonal was in use earlier, and may have entered the English language from that source. More investigation is needed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I didn't see adj. 'mikrotonal' in German musicological literature of the discussed period, while references to 'Vierteltonmusik' (and derivates) abound. Please see once again an article from 1927 by Lotte Kallenbach-Greller in a respectable 'Archiv für Musikwissenschaft', which is quite typical for German science of that time. Olorulus (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I was more surprised to learn (thanks to your recent edit to this article) that "Vierteltonmusik" was still the general term used in the twelfth edition of the Riemann Musiklexikon as late as 1967. (Presumably this has changed with the thirteenth edition, but it would be worth checking.) It now appears that the terms "microtone" and "microtonal" originated in English scholarship concerning the music of India, and in fact Maud MacCarthy Mann (later Mrs John Foulds) claims to have devised the term herself, in order to avoid the misnomer "quarter tone" when discussing the śruti. I have added all this to the article, as well as some complaints from earlier authors (including Alexander J Ellis) about the misleading use of "quarter tone" to describe any and all intervals smaller than a semitone. As far as I can tell, you are perfectly correct about German terminology, which in this case seems to lag behind the English practice. I have not yet found just when "mikrotonal" and "Mikrotonalität" first began to be used by German writers, but it was almost certainly a borrowing from English, and not the other way around.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This is also my point of view. As well as the global contemporary trend (in German and especially in half-educated Russian essays) to borrow English 'microtonality' without first investigating what a 'microtone' is. I just tried to figure it out, thank you for giving me (and all foregin readers, I hope) a better understanding of that confusing term. Olorulus (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. From what I have been able to discover, the term "Mikrointervalle" came into use in German before either "Mikroton" or "Mikrotonalität". I find "Mikrointervalle" used in a review by W. Heinitz, published in 1936 (Acta Musicologica 8, nos. 1–2:63–64), of a 1935 article by Géza Révész. I cannot determine for certain whether Révész had actually used that word in the reviewed article, "“„Tonsystem“ jenseits des musikalischen Gebietes, musikalische „Mikrosysteme“ und ihre Beziehung zu der musikalischen Akustik”, Zeitschrift für Psychologie 134:25–61. The earliest use of "Mikrotonalität" that I have discovered is in 1958. An entry under that word is found on pp. 288ff of Fred K. Prieberg, Lexikon der Neuen Musik (Freiburg i Br. and Munich: K. Alber). Although there are occasional examples in the 1960s and 1970s, the term does not appear to have become widespread in German until the publication (in three volumes) of the proceedings of a congress held in Salzburg in 1987 (and perhaps the following two years). None of this changes anything about our present article as it stands.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Europocentric definition?

Dear colleague, you changed

Microtonal music can also refer to music which uses intervals not found in the Western system of twelve equal intervals to the octave.

to

Microtonal music also includes music using intervals not found in the customary Western system of twelve equal intervals per octave

I consider this view 'europocentric'. The concept of 'microtonal inflexions' from 12ET takes for granted this temperament and using reverse extrapolation explains traditional Eastern scales as 'microtonal' deviations from 12ET which is evidently absurd. The classical example is a so called 'neutral third' which is explained as a 'microtonal inflexion' from both 'European' thirds while a scale which contains the mentioned 'neutral third' is used in Oriental traditions for centuries and has nothing to do with either polyphony (which was the cause of temperament in Europe) or 'microchromatic' genus (which you call 'microtonality'). My point, it is better to leave a modal and encyclopedic statement like 'the expression "microtonal music" can refer to microtonal inflexions... (or 'with "microtonal music" are also described intervals in non-Western early traditions which slightly deviate from the European 12ET modern tuning'). Please consider it. Olorulus (talk) 07:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not rewrite that sentence but, yes, the entire concept of "microtonality" may be regarded as Eurocentric. I only just the other day came across a discussion (and I shall now have to try and find it again) in which it was specifically stated, "there is no concept of microtonality" in the music of some culture or other, with particular reference to "bent" notes and glides. Small intervals are one thing, of course, and the śruti of Indian music are probably the best-known example, but "intervals that deviate from twelve-tone equal temperament" presuppose that 12EQ has some validity, and this is the case only in European music, so far as I am aware. How should we change this statement? Do you mean that it should be reworded to emphasize the fact that this particular definition (or indeed "microtonality" generally) makes sense only in a context of Western (i.e., European) music?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the entire concept of microtonality is Europocentric (check Aristoxenos, Ptolemaeus, or al-Farabi), the nonsense is only presupposing of 'microtonal inflexions' from 12-tones equal temperament. I would suggest:

Microtonal music or microtonality is the music with microtones (also called 'microintervals') used as ornamental inflexions of basically diatonic/chromatic scales or substantial elements of specifically microtonal scales. Some scholars also call 'microtonal' music with intervals which deviate from a semitone of the Western 12-tone equal temperament. Olorulus (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, "some scholars" is liable to bring the charge of weasel language, but a more important objection to this specific wording is that it seems to say that "microtones" are necessarily decorative embellishments of diatonic or chromatic music. Or is "substantial elements of specifically microtonal scales" supposed to represent an alternative to a "merely decorative" role? (I don't understand what this is trying to say.) There are of course some writers who make a distinction between "mere ornamental" use of inflected pitches and "true microtonality", just as on the other side there are some who insist that a keyboard tuned in mean tone is an example of microtonality, simply because it deviates from twelve-equal tuning. This leads directly to the question of whether Aristoxenus or al-Farabi would understand the concept of "microtonality" at all, and, if not, whether it is a misrepresentation of their theories to speak in these terms.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

'Substantial' means intervallic genus (pendant to diatonic and chromatic), when a change from one scale step to another is a change of musical meaning -- modal function changed, using modern terminology, but of course, there was perfectly original terminology which was used. Say, in enharmonic genus of Greeks (described also in Roman music theory, see in Boethius' Musica and in many treatises following Boethius in Middle Ages) it was a step from hypate meson to parhypate meson, a change from parhypate meson to lichanos meson etc. There are also specific terms by al-Farabi, but in the same sense (of modal function).

As for modern composers' Western music, there are dozens of the newly invented microtonal scales of the kind, I'm sure, you know examples. This is what called 'microchromatic intervallic genus' (or microchromatics) in Kholopov's theory, opposed to microtonal blue notes in jazz, in maqam, in Orthodox Byzantine chants etc., all they are stilistically necessary (not just 'mere decorative') but nevertheless ornamental microtonal inflections applied to (basically) diatonic/chromatic intervallic genera. Olorulus (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

As for 'weasel language', any encyclopedic definition can be described in a such way. The following sections in an article usually give examples of the term usage. If there is such usage (whether we agree or not), it is our debt to state the fact, nothing more. For example (as I wrote earlier) Arabic maqam scale with 'neutral third' is no way microtonal scale but just another kind of diatonic, which is nevertheless explained in Western literature as 'microtonal' only on a base that the difference between Zalzal third and European tempered major third is a microinterval. The same is true, as you correctly write, when 12ET-tuning compared to meantone temperament, again using comparative approach. What I suggest, is just to mention such usage, which is (in my opinion) false, but... this is for scholar articles, not for encyclopedia (even a folk one, like Wikipedia). Olorulus (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I am glad we are in substantial agreement on these matters. I do see now what you mean by "substantial", though as I understand it this change of genus does not involve any conception of "microtones" as we define the term today, since this presupposes (amongst other things) a "normal limit" of a semitone, which simply is not the case in ancient Greek theory, at least. One thing to keep in mind, especially on Wikipedia, is that we are obliged to explain how terms are actually used, even when we think some of those uses are inaccurate, misleading, or even just plain wrong. As far as "weasel language" is concerned, no, it is not unavoidable in encyclopedic definitions. Your own most recent edit to the article is a good example of avoiding the weasel wording I complained of in your proposed wording above. As soon as you say "some scholars" you are opening yourself to the questions, "just which scholars are you referring to?", and "How many scholars, really? Two hundred? Two? Just one?" Such phrases can usually be reworded without raising such issues, as you did. My own subsequent edit was merely to tightening up the sentence and make it flow more naturally.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your last edit. I would like to make a section dedicated to systematics of 'microtonal music' in the direction which I sketched above (ornamental microtones vs. 'microtones' in a generic scale). But so far I can trace this discretion (and already long, since Belyaev, i.e. 1930s) only in Russian musicological articles and studies. If you would find some representative English-speaking citations of what you sketched above as opposition of (roughly) 'ornamental microtones' vs. 'true microtonality', this addenda would be definitely useful for a reader and will bring an important discretion to the article where presently 'microtonal' is indiscretly just 'everything with' microtones. Olorulus (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like an excellent idea. I will see if I can find some English-language sources that address this issue.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to come late to this discussion after triggering it. I was trying to avoid the error WP:REFERS, as mentioned in my edit summary. Unfortunately, this has crept back in with "The terms may also apply to..."; it should say what it is not what the terms apply to. I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that the concept is used in English and other European languages to refer to music that doesn't fit the classical musical theory of scales built from semitones. So being "eurocentric" is true and not a bad thing.

Another thing that has just occurred to me: the point of comparison should be the broader concept of scales built from semitones, including both just intonations and equal temperament. So the term "equal temperament" does not belong in the definition, since just intonations such as the 386-cent major third are not considered microtonal. Tayste (edits) 20:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

My apologies in return, for not noticing the "refers to" phrase. I shall tend to it, if you have not already done so. The issue of just what the term refers to (sorry, I couldn't resist!) is not quite as straightforward as you suggest. I think most people would agree with your construal, that "microtonal" should apply only in a context of scales built from semitones, but there is a substantial minority who regard diatonic just intonations as part of the microtonal realm. It is interesting to consider, also, that the ancient Greek system would be excluded from the concept (as I hinted a few paragraphs further up this page), because it does not cumulate steps through an octave, but instead relies on the concept of tetrachords with two variable degrees inside a fixed perfect fourth. As the pyknon is increasingly compressed, the two scale degrees dividing it naturally become smaller and smaller, but the widening interval above can never be filled with smaller intervals (which is why it is called "incomposite"). In theory, the pyknon could be compressed until all three notes (strings of the lyre) were in unison, without the intervals ever becoming "microtonal", simply because there is no threshold "smallest" interval to cross (as a rubicon) into the untamed wilds of the microtonal realm.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've read WP:REFERS. I don't know who was the great anonymous author behind this instruction (which you have to adhere to) but the definition became worse. Olorulus (talk) 07:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I did my very best to change only the wording, and leave the meaning alone. Could you be more specific about what became worse?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the second meaning is an extension of the first. The second meaning is just another meaning, and a marginal one (that's why was my "some scholars use..." to emphasize this marginality, but it is up to you to make an approriate accent to help a reader differentiate between primary and secondary usages, which in the present form is deemed). Olorulus (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is the term that is being extended, rather than the first meaning, though it is also plausible to regard it as fitting the idea of small intervals to a "standard" of equal temperament, from which other tuning systems deviate by such small intervals. It is sometimes astounding how attached people are to the idea that twelve-equal tuning was ordained by God at the Creation, and everything else must be measured by it. There is a confusing patch in the article Sackbut which I recently flagged, that I suspect may be written using this mental framework. It appears that the natural intervals of the overtones of brass instruments are "deformations" of some sort, with the added confusion that mean-tone fifths are perfectly in tune, whereas justly intoned ones are horrible dissonances. Or something. I'm not sure what was intended.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Where on Earth is all the information on Indian tradition?

I feel like this page is extremely Eurocentric and leaves out the long history of Indian tradition which has been using microtones for far longer. This page needs a major rewrite, or at least, a huge addition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.162.186.255 (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not a lot of discussion, it is true, but there are three mentions in the text of srutis. I agree that a more ample description is warrented.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Added one useful source by modern Indian researchers [1]. --93.76.27.217 (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: WikiProject Microtonal Music, Tuning, Temperaments and Scales

Hi there, just to say I've proposed a project Microtonal Music, Tuning, Temperaments and Scales .

It's scope would include everything in the now inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Tunings, Temperaments, and_Scales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) project,. But it adds "Microtonal Music" to the title. This makes it broader in scope, for instance to include microtonal compositions and composition technique, microtonal chords, microtonal composers, microtonal organizations, microtonal regional and national music, etc etc. The idea is that as a larger project we would get more participation.

If you support the idea please add your name to the #Support section, or if you have any thoughts on it that you want to share, do add your voice to its Discussion section. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Microtonal music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120824020439/http://www.furious.com/perfect/experimentalstringinstruments.html to http://www.furious.com/perfect/experimentalstringinstruments.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151108182752/http://www.hypercustom.com/yuichionoue.html to http://www.hypercustom.com/yuichionoue.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Microtonal music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901232520/http://paginas.tol.itesm.mx/campus/L00280370/carrillo.html to http://paginas.tol.itesm.mx/campus/L00280370/carrillo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515230851/http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusic_playing_cracks/ to http://emusician.com/tutorials/emusic_playing_cracks/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901232520/http://paginas.tol.itesm.mx/campus/L00280370/carrillo.html to http://paginas.tol.itesm.mx/campus/L00280370/carrillo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• KGLW - Live in Sydney 21 Cover Art.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)