The contents of the Silbenstrich page were merged into Mensural notation on 16 March 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Silbenstrich was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 March 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Mensural notation. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Thanks for posting this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:8C00:16C:5881:A30B:30F:3260 ( talk) 03:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Wow, this is better organized, and new tables to boot!
Vaux, 6 January 2006
Yes, this is really quite excellent! Bravo!
Phembree ( talk) 04:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The Charpentier example is more confusing than enlightening. It is fundamentally different from the white mensural notation because:
It is certainly an interesting notation, but I don't think it should be part of this article. — Sebastian 09:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but a more persistant instances are found in Fr. Couperin, while there are many examples of hemiola bars in Charpentier where three noirs equal two bars worth of blanches. I have access to facsimiles but no scanner or experience posting images to WP. Would a pdf be of use? Sparafucil 04:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Some notes in the last line seem to have no stems. Is this correct? — Wahoofive ( talk) 02:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the point is that unstemmed = unstemmed and that the coloration is alerting us to a hemiola bar in 3/1. Btw, sorry the time signature at the beginning isnt cleaned up yet (Charpentier uses 3); there's obviously some cludging involved in getting Sibelius to beam crochets. Sparafucil 05:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I substituted a chunk for the Te Deum example in the article. Since the history section touches on the 17c, it doesnt seem so out of place. We now have an example of the mensural system in full flower and one of its decadence; maybe an emergent example would be useful as well. Sparafucil 02:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Unlike the Te Deum (where we seem to agree), this example cannot be correctly interpreted within the modern system: the point is that the black notes are _not_ the same values. It is of course arguable that coloration is not the most important feature of the mensural system, but this does represent pretty nearly its last gasp. I dont understand your point about "notability", or what sources should be given beyond the one I supplied; do you mean my reading of the ms. is original research? Sparafucil 09:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I assure you I am not being willfully boring and silly; I'm just unable to follow some of your argument: if it's not modern, what is it?. Perhaps the Charpentier example will be useful to someone doing an article on coloration. Our mutual incomprehension does highlight the article's lack of a clear definition of the word mensural. I take its essence to be the dependence of a note's rythmic value on mensural/time signatures, and I extend that to the implied time signatures of coloration. Different examples can be found in Monteverde, where in the Malpiero ed. music in common time is often interupted by a 3 followed by two bars of three whole notes each. The new complete ed. gives these as one bar of quarter note triplets with no change of time signature, which is clearly a mensural interpretation of the notation, whether one agrees with it or not. Sparafucil 12:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Very late to the party – after more than five years – but it still itches me to put in my two cents here: While it is true that this notation is not "really mensural" in crucial ways, it is still also true that all those of its features that deviate from standard normal practice can be explained as holdovers from mensural notation, so yes, there was some relevance to this. The non-modern features are:
If you were to rewrite this in "real" mensural notation, the only differences would be that there would be no dots after the dotted whole notes in m.1 in the bass and m.9 in the upper voice, where the semibreves would be understood as "perfect" by default, and that the syncopated rhythm in m.8 of the bass would have to be notated with an alterated minim instead of the semibreve. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
"....Black Notation, colored notes were written in red."
If so, I have to rewrite Cordier and Chantilly.
I'm hesitant to do the edit myself because I'm just learning this and I don't have citation, but I think the section on coloration needs elaboration.
The article as is states that coloration reduces notes by 1/3 value. This is true but later in the 15th century minor color was developed, which reduces note values by 1/4, and of course this has a big impact on the way rhythms are interpreted. So I think further detail is needed in this section. Naeelah ( talk) 16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Might there be a mention somewhere in this article about the Unicode chart for musical symbols (range:1D100–1D1FF), but more specifically the mensural notation section (range:1D1B6–1D1CE)? It seems quite applicable.... - NDCompuGeek ( talk) 16:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody have an opinion as to when open music notation gave way to black notation; when the longest note changed from the Longa to the Breve. My own theory is that it coincided with music printing. If I am wrong is there any other explanation? Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.154.244 ( talk) 14:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey there!
may I just ask how you made these wonderful music examples with mensural notation? I am thinking of experimenting with lilypond's mensural notation features, but I don't know if these are worthwile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.119.3.2 ( talk) 11:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, thank you so much indeed, that is very useful to know. I will try and see what I can do with Lilypond, but will definitely experiment along the lines you suggested. P.S. you might be interested in this project: http://www.cmme.org/ - I know some of the people working on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.182.215 ( talk) 15:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure; although I suspect you know more about history/theory of mensural notation than I do. I am more practically involved with it, singing in a small ensemble using choir-books made (copied) from original sources. I don't know how widespread it is, as far as I am aware the only professional ensemble singing from original notation is Cappella Pratensis (google for their website). Anyway: I printed a pdf of this wiki article and will let you know if I noticed anything to improve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.119.3.2 ( talk) 12:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
This is an interesting example, but is there an unstated reason that the last phrase "...cucu ne swik thu never nu" never seems to be transcribed using alteration? Sparafucil ( talk) 01:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Widefox, with this edit you placed a quality mark on an article which, according to the referenced quality scale, implies that the article in question is "still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material", that it has "significant issues or require[s] substantial cleanup", and that it fails to "provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study". You did this on an article of >50,000 bytes length, in a topic domain with which you seem to have little or no prior experience, invoking a Wikiproject scheme with which you seem to have no prior relation, and – judging from your surrounding edits – after taking not much more than maximally ten minutes to read this and two other articles in the same topic area.
As the editor who has invested most time into developing this article, may I kindly ask you to clarify on the talk page which "important content" is missing from the article or which parts of it are "irrelevant material", in which ways it would require "significant cleanup", in which ways its services for a "moderately detailed study" of the topic would be "incomplete", and which criteria of the B quality scale it would miss? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I have just noticed the complete mish-mash of American and British English in this article. Sometimes it is crotchet and quaver, sometimes quarter note and eighth note; once "color" is spelt "colour", while elsewhere "colour" is spelled "color" (ignoring the technical term "coloration", which may be a separate issue for all I know); the abbreviation "i.e." is never followed by a comma (British practice) and yet the abbreviation "m." (American) is used instead of "b." (British). Now, the usual procedure in such cases is to discover what the first-established style was, but the article was originally created with this very clash of regional English in place. Even though the creator, User:Vaux, appears to be American (or, in any case, is a graduate student at an American university), he seems to have preferred British terminology for note-names (quaver, crotchet, etc.) while at the same time favouring American language elsewhere ("measure" instead of "bar"). While avoiding regionalisms is always a good policy, they cannot always be avoided in practice, and this is clearly such a case. What is the consensus of the editors to resolve this problem?— Jerome Kohl ( talk) 02:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Early versions of the article seem to have had "color" and "-ize" spellings, so I suppose it should generally be US English. We should of course still use the Latin-based historical note names in the main body of the text, wherever the actual historical note types and not their modern equivalents are referred to. I think what I was trying to do in my recent versions of the article was to first introduce those names quoting them in their fully Latin original form (semibrevis, minima, semiminima, marked as foreign terms by italics), but then silently shift over to their Anglicized versions ("semibreve", "minim", "semiminim", without italics) in the body of the text, because these seemed to be slightly more common in the literature and we can save ourselves all the typographical upheaval of too frequent italics in this way. Wherever glosses or contrasting mentions of modern note values are necessary, my suggestion would be to mention both the American and the British terms, wherever the latter are different from the historical terms with which they are being contrasted. Thus:
the semibrevis (modern semibreve or whole note)
the semiminim (modern crotchet or quarter note)
the semibreve (whole note)
Would that be okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe there may be a mistake in the transcription of the Baude Cordier piece. Toward the end, you have the augmentation sign that basically sets the minim as the integer valor (3 minims per bar). The proportio tripla calls for 9 minims per bar, which is correctly translated. But, the final proportion 8/9 should be affected by the proportio tripla that precedes it. The proportion says that there should be now 8 minims where there were previously 9. Those two bars of 8 eighth notes should actually be one bar of 8 16th notes.
Is this correct?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AppaAliApsa ( talk • contribs)
What is the basis for favoring "perfect" and "imperfect" prolation over the historical terms "major" and "minor," which are the only ones I've encountered in the literature? I'll gladly change them if it doesn't seem justified. Thanks! Hebeckwith ( talk) 06:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Is it worth noting that the old form of a crotchet rest was still in use for most of the 20th Century as a sort of reversed quaver rest? See List of musical symbols#Rhythmic values of notes and rests and Quarter note. Seeing the table of rests it is obvious that the mensural Semiminim rest is the origin of the manuscript crotchet rest as taught in music theory until at least 1975. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 17:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The contents of the Silbenstrich page were merged into Mensural notation on 16 March 2022. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Silbenstrich was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 March 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Mensural notation. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Thanks for posting this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6080:8C00:16C:5881:A30B:30F:3260 ( talk) 03:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Wow, this is better organized, and new tables to boot!
Vaux, 6 January 2006
Yes, this is really quite excellent! Bravo!
Phembree ( talk) 04:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The Charpentier example is more confusing than enlightening. It is fundamentally different from the white mensural notation because:
It is certainly an interesting notation, but I don't think it should be part of this article. — Sebastian 09:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but a more persistant instances are found in Fr. Couperin, while there are many examples of hemiola bars in Charpentier where three noirs equal two bars worth of blanches. I have access to facsimiles but no scanner or experience posting images to WP. Would a pdf be of use? Sparafucil 04:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Some notes in the last line seem to have no stems. Is this correct? — Wahoofive ( talk) 02:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the point is that unstemmed = unstemmed and that the coloration is alerting us to a hemiola bar in 3/1. Btw, sorry the time signature at the beginning isnt cleaned up yet (Charpentier uses 3); there's obviously some cludging involved in getting Sibelius to beam crochets. Sparafucil 05:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I substituted a chunk for the Te Deum example in the article. Since the history section touches on the 17c, it doesnt seem so out of place. We now have an example of the mensural system in full flower and one of its decadence; maybe an emergent example would be useful as well. Sparafucil 02:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Unlike the Te Deum (where we seem to agree), this example cannot be correctly interpreted within the modern system: the point is that the black notes are _not_ the same values. It is of course arguable that coloration is not the most important feature of the mensural system, but this does represent pretty nearly its last gasp. I dont understand your point about "notability", or what sources should be given beyond the one I supplied; do you mean my reading of the ms. is original research? Sparafucil 09:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I assure you I am not being willfully boring and silly; I'm just unable to follow some of your argument: if it's not modern, what is it?. Perhaps the Charpentier example will be useful to someone doing an article on coloration. Our mutual incomprehension does highlight the article's lack of a clear definition of the word mensural. I take its essence to be the dependence of a note's rythmic value on mensural/time signatures, and I extend that to the implied time signatures of coloration. Different examples can be found in Monteverde, where in the Malpiero ed. music in common time is often interupted by a 3 followed by two bars of three whole notes each. The new complete ed. gives these as one bar of quarter note triplets with no change of time signature, which is clearly a mensural interpretation of the notation, whether one agrees with it or not. Sparafucil 12:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Very late to the party – after more than five years – but it still itches me to put in my two cents here: While it is true that this notation is not "really mensural" in crucial ways, it is still also true that all those of its features that deviate from standard normal practice can be explained as holdovers from mensural notation, so yes, there was some relevance to this. The non-modern features are:
If you were to rewrite this in "real" mensural notation, the only differences would be that there would be no dots after the dotted whole notes in m.1 in the bass and m.9 in the upper voice, where the semibreves would be understood as "perfect" by default, and that the syncopated rhythm in m.8 of the bass would have to be notated with an alterated minim instead of the semibreve. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
"....Black Notation, colored notes were written in red."
If so, I have to rewrite Cordier and Chantilly.
I'm hesitant to do the edit myself because I'm just learning this and I don't have citation, but I think the section on coloration needs elaboration.
The article as is states that coloration reduces notes by 1/3 value. This is true but later in the 15th century minor color was developed, which reduces note values by 1/4, and of course this has a big impact on the way rhythms are interpreted. So I think further detail is needed in this section. Naeelah ( talk) 16:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Might there be a mention somewhere in this article about the Unicode chart for musical symbols (range:1D100–1D1FF), but more specifically the mensural notation section (range:1D1B6–1D1CE)? It seems quite applicable.... - NDCompuGeek ( talk) 16:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody have an opinion as to when open music notation gave way to black notation; when the longest note changed from the Longa to the Breve. My own theory is that it coincided with music printing. If I am wrong is there any other explanation? Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.154.244 ( talk) 14:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey there!
may I just ask how you made these wonderful music examples with mensural notation? I am thinking of experimenting with lilypond's mensural notation features, but I don't know if these are worthwile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.119.3.2 ( talk) 11:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, thank you so much indeed, that is very useful to know. I will try and see what I can do with Lilypond, but will definitely experiment along the lines you suggested. P.S. you might be interested in this project: http://www.cmme.org/ - I know some of the people working on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.182.215 ( talk) 15:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure; although I suspect you know more about history/theory of mensural notation than I do. I am more practically involved with it, singing in a small ensemble using choir-books made (copied) from original sources. I don't know how widespread it is, as far as I am aware the only professional ensemble singing from original notation is Cappella Pratensis (google for their website). Anyway: I printed a pdf of this wiki article and will let you know if I noticed anything to improve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.119.3.2 ( talk) 12:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
This is an interesting example, but is there an unstated reason that the last phrase "...cucu ne swik thu never nu" never seems to be transcribed using alteration? Sparafucil ( talk) 01:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Widefox, with this edit you placed a quality mark on an article which, according to the referenced quality scale, implies that the article in question is "still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material", that it has "significant issues or require[s] substantial cleanup", and that it fails to "provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study". You did this on an article of >50,000 bytes length, in a topic domain with which you seem to have little or no prior experience, invoking a Wikiproject scheme with which you seem to have no prior relation, and – judging from your surrounding edits – after taking not much more than maximally ten minutes to read this and two other articles in the same topic area.
As the editor who has invested most time into developing this article, may I kindly ask you to clarify on the talk page which "important content" is missing from the article or which parts of it are "irrelevant material", in which ways it would require "significant cleanup", in which ways its services for a "moderately detailed study" of the topic would be "incomplete", and which criteria of the B quality scale it would miss? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I have just noticed the complete mish-mash of American and British English in this article. Sometimes it is crotchet and quaver, sometimes quarter note and eighth note; once "color" is spelt "colour", while elsewhere "colour" is spelled "color" (ignoring the technical term "coloration", which may be a separate issue for all I know); the abbreviation "i.e." is never followed by a comma (British practice) and yet the abbreviation "m." (American) is used instead of "b." (British). Now, the usual procedure in such cases is to discover what the first-established style was, but the article was originally created with this very clash of regional English in place. Even though the creator, User:Vaux, appears to be American (or, in any case, is a graduate student at an American university), he seems to have preferred British terminology for note-names (quaver, crotchet, etc.) while at the same time favouring American language elsewhere ("measure" instead of "bar"). While avoiding regionalisms is always a good policy, they cannot always be avoided in practice, and this is clearly such a case. What is the consensus of the editors to resolve this problem?— Jerome Kohl ( talk) 02:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Early versions of the article seem to have had "color" and "-ize" spellings, so I suppose it should generally be US English. We should of course still use the Latin-based historical note names in the main body of the text, wherever the actual historical note types and not their modern equivalents are referred to. I think what I was trying to do in my recent versions of the article was to first introduce those names quoting them in their fully Latin original form (semibrevis, minima, semiminima, marked as foreign terms by italics), but then silently shift over to their Anglicized versions ("semibreve", "minim", "semiminim", without italics) in the body of the text, because these seemed to be slightly more common in the literature and we can save ourselves all the typographical upheaval of too frequent italics in this way. Wherever glosses or contrasting mentions of modern note values are necessary, my suggestion would be to mention both the American and the British terms, wherever the latter are different from the historical terms with which they are being contrasted. Thus:
the semibrevis (modern semibreve or whole note)
the semiminim (modern crotchet or quarter note)
the semibreve (whole note)
Would that be okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe there may be a mistake in the transcription of the Baude Cordier piece. Toward the end, you have the augmentation sign that basically sets the minim as the integer valor (3 minims per bar). The proportio tripla calls for 9 minims per bar, which is correctly translated. But, the final proportion 8/9 should be affected by the proportio tripla that precedes it. The proportion says that there should be now 8 minims where there were previously 9. Those two bars of 8 eighth notes should actually be one bar of 8 16th notes.
Is this correct?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by AppaAliApsa ( talk • contribs)
What is the basis for favoring "perfect" and "imperfect" prolation over the historical terms "major" and "minor," which are the only ones I've encountered in the literature? I'll gladly change them if it doesn't seem justified. Thanks! Hebeckwith ( talk) 06:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Is it worth noting that the old form of a crotchet rest was still in use for most of the 20th Century as a sort of reversed quaver rest? See List of musical symbols#Rhythmic values of notes and rests and Quarter note. Seeing the table of rests it is obvious that the mensural Semiminim rest is the origin of the manuscript crotchet rest as taught in music theory until at least 1975. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 17:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)