This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tone cluster article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Tone cluster has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Shouldn't it be listed that these are often used as horror film melodies when combined with b5s?
Great! Do you think you could write the appropriate sentence or two? I'll be happy to copyedit it, but I don't have the knowledge to compose it. Best, Dan — DCGeist 20:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
What does "in music and in Western tuning" mean? Music includes western tuning, so should it say especially or should it be only? Hyacinth 13:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be mentioned that they sound dissonant? Minor seconds and major seconds combined isn't pretty. Unless your a Penderecki fan!
True, you have a point. But try playing a tone cluster song around a conventional music listener...See the reaction you get.
Shouldn't it be noted that there are tone cluster power chords i.e. CC#D? Would this be assumed though?
Yeah, still...Threnody is that for 2 minutes. Not pleasent.
I feel that this article does not meet Good Article criteria 1a, as it could be more readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers (I would not have failed it on this criteria alone), 1b, as it only has and introduction and one section. However, the article meets the majority of criteria and is very close to being a good article. Hyacinth 01:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a very good article to me, and as accessible to non-specialists as it's possible to get when the subject is a technical one.
Only one small point: the article has two footnotes and one embedded citation (which, oddly, is marked by a ">" rather than by a number). It would be more consistent if they were all footnotes. MLilburne 14:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, the Henry Cowell quote needs a footnote. MLilburne 14:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
On looking more closely at the article, I see the way that you've referenced direct quotations. However, I don't believe that this is one of the citation methods recommended in Wikipedia. I think the citations are going to have to be standardized. MLilburne 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
What citation method is in use? Hyacinth 00:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Why does a tone cluster need be simultaneous, and what is the difference between "simultaneous" and "truly simultaneous"? If a tone cluster need be simultaneous than it is not accurate to call it a chord, as that is not specific enough. Hyacinth 23:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I know I'm coming in on this a few years late, and it may no longer be an issue - but it does raise an interesting point. I agree that the notes of a chord need not be struck simultaneously, and that it is sufficient they they sound together for at least a common part of their durations, even if they are struck (and maybe released) at different times. But, as for the statement that the notes of a cluster *must* be struck together, I would question that. The stereotyped and typical, best-known form of a cluster may consist of a number of adjacent notes struck together - but surely it also counts if some or all of the notes are struck at different times, so long as at some point they are sounding together, and perceived by the ear as sounding together.
What should we make of the three-octave diatonic cluster which opens Richard Strauss's "An Alpine Symphony"? Every one of the notes begins separately, in descending order down the Bb-minor scale; but they are all sustained for many bars, so that they *sound* together. I don't know if anyone has ever set a formal definition of "cluster" that covers this; but to my mind it does not make any sense to deny that this is a cluster, simply because the notes don't begin at the same time. M.J.E. ( talk) 05:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe that R. Murray Schafer's choral Epitaph for Moonlight (1968) contains an example of a cluster which is not "truly simultaneous": "A tone cluster is constructed by dividing each choir section (soprano/alto/tenor/bass) into four parts. Each hums a note one semitone lower than the note hummed by the previous section, until all sixteen parts are contributing to the cluster." I propose that in place of "truly" we put "conceived or perceived as" simultaneous. Hyacinth 02:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Apologies, please quote a source. Hyacinth 04:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
OOH. It would be awesome if we could have one or two images of musical notation showing consecutive steps not used in a cluster. Hyacinth 04:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It would seem that a tone cluster must be thought of as a tone cluster or appear to listeners as tone clusters. Why would this not be true? Hyacinth 06:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's a suitable GA category for this article. I've put it under "Music," obviously, and then under "Genres, styles and music eras," which is the best fit that I can find. Atonality is in that section, but it sits a bit uneasily next to articles like Alternative rock and Ska. If you feel I've put it in the wrong place, let me know and I will move it. (Or you can do so yourself, which might be simpler.) MLilburne 23:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"In music" establishes the quickest and clearest context and is the only type of example given at Wikipedia:Lead section#Establish context. DCGeist, since this is the first discussion of this change in the lead section there can be no consensus. Hyacinth 04:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
In what way would changing the introduction to begin with "In music" stop the article from being a good article? Hyacinth 05:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Please point me to the discussion in which consensus was reach. Thanks. Hyacinth 06:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
This good article ought to have a section on notation of clusters, as this has evolved (at least on the piano) away from notating all the notes that are to be played in favour of a more graphic notation. It needs a few pictures that I shall try to find time to provide, unless someone else is equipped and has more time. (Posting in advance as feelings seem to run high on this page!) JH(emendator) 21:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I linked Ornstein, because I was re-reading the Other exponents subsection on its own, and came across the name: without a first name I was unable to get through a disambig page when I searched within Wikipedia for "Ornstein". This page is full of proper names, and Ornstein appeared more than a screen up (as it happens when I was reading) so I didn't spot it. IIRC, Wikipedia policy is that multiple links to the same page are a matter of judgement; I'm happy to be over-ruled, but then I'd like to see "Leo" added here: I don't think we can assume people read Wikipedia pages top to bottom. JH(emendator) 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Respond at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tone cluster/archive1.
I think we can get this to a featured article but the article has reach an impasse. Help with definitions and comments are welcome. Hyacinth 02:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this why peer review is under-resourced—because comments go into a void? – Outriggr § 10:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Respond at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tone cluster/archive1.
Well, I only saw Kraftwerk mentioned with their 1970 work. But also in later albums there ARE clusters! You only have to listen to Elektro Kardiogramm (2nd half). Aren't that clusters too?? -andy 84.149.124.27 ( talk) 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm uneasy about the cut-and-dried ruling out of notes from membership of a tone-cluster if they're sounded before or after a cluster (prolongation, yes?). Acciacciaturas are of course not admissable, but it's not an easy delineation to make. TONY (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Could someone put the used pictures on wikicommons for use in other wiki languages? Regards, DTBone ( talk) 14:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not correct. The modern keyboard is designed to play music in any of 12 keys. There just happens to be 7 diatonic scales which can be played on only white keys, and 5 pentatonic scales on black keys. However, there are (at least) 42 diatonic scales which require both white and black keys, and 28 pentatonic scales which require both (perhaps more) This caption should be improved -- 20:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I was led here through the featured article Leo Ornstein. Unlike many articles on music theory on Wikipedia, I found this one quite straightforward and, for a layperson such as myself, easy to understand. Reading the Ornstein article, I wanted to know what tone clusters were. I actually understand it now! Good job. Now if someone could help me understand serial music.... freshacconci speaktome 00:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I've spent (or wasted) far more time looking for Extremes of Conventional Music Notation than anyone I know of. When I wrote that something of Cowell's was "probably" the largest, etc., etc., or that something of Schwantner's was "perhaps" the largest, etc., etc., I qualified those statements based on over 20 years of seeing records of this type overturned by music I hadn't known about before. Then someone removed the qualifiers... I'm not sure my qualifiers were the best possible choices, but I'm very sure that making flat statements about these extremes isn't a good idea. I've re-added the qualifiers. -- DonAByrd 03:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 17:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
We need to disambiguate the words tone and note as used in different countries. To me (in UK) a tone is two semitones. We tend to use the phrase note cluster in the UK, since note is the word used for a particular identified pitch. Perhaps non-biased language should be used? See my comment on the talk page about the lead and consider the fact that later sections actually use the UK word... -- Jubilee♫ clipman 03:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I just read the wiki-article on Nick Drake and thought he could be mentioned in the "In popular music" section. Especially since this article seems to mention mostly piano players. Cheers Ineverheardofhim ( talk) 11:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
..comprising at least three consecutive tones in a scale.
Does this mean "pitches" (ie the UK "notes") or "two semitones"? If the former, then I suggest the following non-US/UK language: ..comprising at least three consecutive pitches from a scale. -- Jubilee♫ clipman 02:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
DCGeist, I see you've reorganized and repositioned the comments I put in about Richard Strauss (Alpine Symphony) and Albeniz (Iberia) - but you have also removed most of the detail I put in describing the detail of these uses of clusters - such as the fact that the Strauss was in finely divided strings, covering several octaves, and sustained behind tonal harmony in the winds, and the fact that the Iberia clusters consisted mainly of 3 or 4 notes, made up partly of minor seconds and partly of major seconds.
Do you disagree with what I said on those points? I do own the scores of both works, and the statements are definitely true.
Any problem if I put those points back in? Will you just remove them again? Those descriptive details do, it seems to me, help give the reader a clearer picture of the nature of these clusters. M.J.E. ( talk) 15:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Dan. I could respond to a few of your comments, although, since I apparently cannot add any more to this which can be accepted, I don't know if I'd be wasting my time even contemplating adding anything more to this article. Still, I'll tell you my thoughts, in case you're interested. Where I'm responding to a particular comment you made, I will first quote that briefly.
Unfortunately, we're unable to use most of the detailed information you provided about each piece, at least in the absence of independent sourcing. Information must be cited to reliable sources—please see our policy on WP:Verifiability. The descriptions you provided are on the borderline of what is referred to here as "original research," which is not allowed—please see our policy on WP:No original research. In sum, as our policy puts it, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
That does make things difficult for me. My position is that I know quite a lot about music, especially from Beethoven onwards, and that includes a lot of theoretical knowledge too. This has been acquired by a lifetime of study of scores. This has been done largely on my own, and I wanted to be a composer, so I always had a strong tendency to analyze music as deeply as I could. But I have had far less formal musical education than my actual knowledge would seem to suggest, so I don't have a great stock of books of the sort you would accept as verification. I might know a lot of stuff backwards, but be unable to point to any published work that actually says it in so many words. No doubt, for things I haven't just observed myself, I have in fact read them somewhere in some book in the dim, shadowy past; but I wouldn't have a hope of actually remembering where I read particular facts decades ago so that I can cite it now. The fact is, I would not be able to find books to back up dozens or even hundreds of musical facts that I know are true; although I suppose, if I looked long enough, I could find references. But I don't have the time to do that: life's too short to find references for dozens of musical facts I already know but can't find in a book. (Some articles have hundreds of footnoted references, just about one for every sentence in the article. In such cases, I am just amazed that anyone had the time to actually come up with all those! I can only assume this is feasible for people who already have an intimate knowledge of the sources they are citing.)
Although, in the points I made earlier, I would have thought the scores themselves would be a reference - the best, most direct one, surely. Anyone who can read music can see that the statements I made were true, and I disagree with you that they border on original research: I simply read what is plainly there; I am not inventing new theories about how to analyze the music, or anything like that.
If nonetheless the policy rules out the kinds of things I said (if I can't find a textbook that says them in so many words), I guess I cannot change that; but it would make me quite unable to contribute to Wikipedia knowledge I have which could be very useful.
That said, some of what you provided may be reintroduced if it is cited to the scores that you indicate are in your possession.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. How do you mean, cited to the scores?
Have you seen those scores yourself? If so, surely you can see that they back up what I said? Is that not good enough?
Here is our specific policy language relevant to the use of a primary source, such as a musical score: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source...."
I don't know if there's some obscure or subtle reason for this policy; but, on the surface at least, it sounds rather counterproductive to me. I would have thought that most of what I said was a straightforward, descriptive statement of what was in the scores.
"Access to the source but without specialist knowledge"? I'm not sure how to read that in the case of musical scores. It is the nature of musical scores that they mean nothing to someone who can't read music, which ability I assume may be regarded as specialist knowledge.
The following description of Iberia is clearly interpretive and thus unambiguously disallowed unless support by a secondary source: "These clusters can be viewed as extra notes added to the predominating harmony, or possibly as grace notes which are fully simultaneous with their resolutions instead of preceding them."
Well, maybe a bit more than other things I said. I think that's stretching it a bit, though. If someone *disagrees* with that, I would be interested to hear their reasoning. It seems a fairly objective, uncontroversial description of the clusters to me.
As I said before, secondary sources of the sort you refer to are a difficulty for me, because of my particular situation (musically knowledgeable, but with relatively little formal musical education, and little contact with the musical world generally). I suppose such references do exist - but I'm just not in a position to actually find them.
Other of your statements are more straightforwardly descriptive and are arguably allowable if cited to specific pages of the score.
You mean if I say such-and-such occurs in bar x of the nth movement, or whatever?
Well, I guess I can manage that. Just give me a few days - I don't have the scores handy now, but can find on-line copies when I have a faster connection (which I don't have at home, but do have access to elsewhere every week or so).
We would then have to consider the question of balance. The length of your treatment of these two pieces was quite disproportionate to the discussion of almost all the other individual pieces mentioned in the section (the major exception being Ives's Concord Sonata, whose clusters are particularly and verifiably famous).
I've read debates in other articles here on "deletionism" vs. "inclusionism", and I am quite strongly in the latter camp. If balance is required, then half of Wikipedia needs pruning, and I submit that this would gut it to the point of trivial uselessness - because lots of articles have imbalance of one sort or another in their various aspects. Rather, I would say the remedy would be for editors knowledgeable in the right areas to fill in some of the areas in articles that are underrepresented. So, while I agree that balance is desirable, I think it would be overrating it if it led to useful information being deleted from articles. I would rather achieve balance by raising everything to the highest level found in part of the article, than by reducing everything to the lowest common denominator.
The length of my treatment amounted only to a couple of sentences in each case, and hardly seems excessive to me, although I suppose that's a subjective judgement where we may possibly just have to agree to disagree.
So take a look at what we have now for the Albéniz and the Strauss, and think about what if anything might (1) usefully be added in the span of no more than a sentence to each passage and (2) inarguably be sourced to specific pages in the score (or, of course, to any reliable secondary sources to which you might have access).
No, I can't meet those conditions: information requires sentences to convey, and I can't convey two sentences' worth of information in one sentence (other than by artifically and clumsily expanding one sentence to the length of two). I could possibly look at Iberia and find specific passages to back up what I said. (I don't have the score handy right now, so I did write the passage without referring to it, feeling confident that my memory of what it was like enabled me to describe it accurately.)
* For Albéniz: "uses small clusters, usually of 3 or 4 notes...usually made up of a combination of major and minor seconds, occasionally including two adjacent semitones."
I'm sure that, if I find the score (I don't know where it is now - maybe I could check it on imslp.org next time I have a faster connection), I could find specific bars that back up what I said.
Though the language of the second segment needs to be cleaned up: "two adjacent semitones," in fact, constitute a "minor second." Perhaps you mean to be drawing the music theory distinction between a minor second and an augmented unison?
No, that isn't what I meant. I meant two actual adjacent semitone intervals, involving three notes - as in C-C#-D, or B#-C#-D. I wasn't distinguishing between the actual notation there, or between minor 2nds or augmented unisons. I was meaning to suggest that the clusters are made up of both major and minor seconds, with two minor seconds occasionally being adjacent.
* For Strauss: "in finely divided strings, [accompanying] tonal harmony and melody played by the brass and woodwind sections; these clusters are diatonic,...span several octaves, and are sustained for many bars at a time, very softly."
This is unquestionably true, and can be easily seen in the relevant passages of the score. You removed the bit about the Bb natural minor scale, which seems to me an interesting part of the detail.
Anyway, for what it's worth, those are my thoughts on this. Do I have any valid points?
P.S.:
I ran into an edit conflict when I tried to save this, because apparently you made a change to your post while I was working on the above. In it, you seem to have removed yet another detail from the proposed comment about Strauss: namely that the clusters accompany tonal harmony and melody in the winds.
I don't quite understand why you want to strip the details back as much as possible. It can be easily verified from the score. And surely it is more interesting and informative to read such details than merely that the piece uses long clusters sustained for a long time. (I was tempted originally to add that modulations in the tonal parts led to a brief bitonal conflict between the clusters (which remain in Bb minor) and the harmony in the winds, which moves through triads such as D minor and G minor. But I suppose you would consider it entirely over the top to add that. What happens when editors disagree, not on whether something is acceptable in content or not, but just on how much detail should be given?) M.J.E. ( talk) 04:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tone cluster. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the context of tone here musical tone, or musical note (as mentioned in the music disambiguation page)? MfortyoneA ( talk) 20:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Last spring and summer, Spencerpiers made a series of additions to the article that have expanded our understanding of the early usage of tone clusters. However, I am concerned that the heavy focus on the two Bach examples violates both WP:Verifiability and WP:Undue. I can't find a single verifiable source that has "identified" these as tone clusters, and even if we were all to overlook WP:Verifiability—which we really can't—they are obviously too minor as examples to bear the focus they're now given. Does anyone believe that there is a source (or sources) out there that identify these as tone clusters which they can track down? And does anyone believe there's a verifiable basis for claiming them to be vastly more significant than the many, much clearer examples mentioned in the article that don't have any media at all associated with them? As an aside, in terms of article design, their inclusion really makes the "Before the 1900s" section appear over-cluttered. — DCGeist ( talk) 00:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Apparently edit summaries are insufficient to deal with a misattribution problem. In 1721, André Cardinal Destouches and Michel-Richard Delalande produced a famous opéra-ballet in four acts titled Les Élémens. Delalande's brother-in-law, the violinist Jean-Féry Rebel, was at the time conductor of the Paris Opéra, and directed the first performance of the opera in 1721. Delalande died five years later. In 1727 and 1728, Rebel composed (in two parts) a purely instrumental ballet with the same title. It does not incorporate any of the Destouches/Delalande material, but does have the purely orchestral "Cahos" (Chaos) opening number with the famous tone cluster. The Destouches/Delalande opera has a completely different opening, also titled "Cahos", with three vocal parts, but no tone cluster. This is why I have changed the link, so it will not point to the wrong composition. It has therefore become a red link. No doubt Rebel's work ought to have an article of its own, and it would be helpful also if the article Les Éléments, which is about a modern French vocal ensemble, could include information about whether they took their name from the Destouches/Delalande composition (as seems most likely), or from Rebel's recently better-known piece. These three titles should also share the same capitalization scheme, as explained at MOS:FR. Both the initial word and the first noun are capitalized, as in the present title of the article on the performing group.— Jerome Kohl ( talk) 17:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The contention that Scott Joplin wrote clusters needs to be justified with at least one example. TheScotch ( talk) 17:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
If you allow minor thirds in a cluster as in the right-hand part of the currently notated example, then obviously the term "cluster" becomes meaningless. A cluster is a set of at least three notes no larger than a whole-step apart (however the steps are spelled) sounded simultaneously. You can't make a cluster out of augmented seconds or minor thirds. TheScotch ( talk) 17:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tone cluster article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Tone cluster has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Shouldn't it be listed that these are often used as horror film melodies when combined with b5s?
Great! Do you think you could write the appropriate sentence or two? I'll be happy to copyedit it, but I don't have the knowledge to compose it. Best, Dan — DCGeist 20:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
What does "in music and in Western tuning" mean? Music includes western tuning, so should it say especially or should it be only? Hyacinth 13:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be mentioned that they sound dissonant? Minor seconds and major seconds combined isn't pretty. Unless your a Penderecki fan!
True, you have a point. But try playing a tone cluster song around a conventional music listener...See the reaction you get.
Shouldn't it be noted that there are tone cluster power chords i.e. CC#D? Would this be assumed though?
Yeah, still...Threnody is that for 2 minutes. Not pleasent.
I feel that this article does not meet Good Article criteria 1a, as it could be more readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers (I would not have failed it on this criteria alone), 1b, as it only has and introduction and one section. However, the article meets the majority of criteria and is very close to being a good article. Hyacinth 01:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a very good article to me, and as accessible to non-specialists as it's possible to get when the subject is a technical one.
Only one small point: the article has two footnotes and one embedded citation (which, oddly, is marked by a ">" rather than by a number). It would be more consistent if they were all footnotes. MLilburne 14:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, the Henry Cowell quote needs a footnote. MLilburne 14:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
On looking more closely at the article, I see the way that you've referenced direct quotations. However, I don't believe that this is one of the citation methods recommended in Wikipedia. I think the citations are going to have to be standardized. MLilburne 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
What citation method is in use? Hyacinth 00:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Why does a tone cluster need be simultaneous, and what is the difference between "simultaneous" and "truly simultaneous"? If a tone cluster need be simultaneous than it is not accurate to call it a chord, as that is not specific enough. Hyacinth 23:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I know I'm coming in on this a few years late, and it may no longer be an issue - but it does raise an interesting point. I agree that the notes of a chord need not be struck simultaneously, and that it is sufficient they they sound together for at least a common part of their durations, even if they are struck (and maybe released) at different times. But, as for the statement that the notes of a cluster *must* be struck together, I would question that. The stereotyped and typical, best-known form of a cluster may consist of a number of adjacent notes struck together - but surely it also counts if some or all of the notes are struck at different times, so long as at some point they are sounding together, and perceived by the ear as sounding together.
What should we make of the three-octave diatonic cluster which opens Richard Strauss's "An Alpine Symphony"? Every one of the notes begins separately, in descending order down the Bb-minor scale; but they are all sustained for many bars, so that they *sound* together. I don't know if anyone has ever set a formal definition of "cluster" that covers this; but to my mind it does not make any sense to deny that this is a cluster, simply because the notes don't begin at the same time. M.J.E. ( talk) 05:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe that R. Murray Schafer's choral Epitaph for Moonlight (1968) contains an example of a cluster which is not "truly simultaneous": "A tone cluster is constructed by dividing each choir section (soprano/alto/tenor/bass) into four parts. Each hums a note one semitone lower than the note hummed by the previous section, until all sixteen parts are contributing to the cluster." I propose that in place of "truly" we put "conceived or perceived as" simultaneous. Hyacinth 02:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Apologies, please quote a source. Hyacinth 04:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
OOH. It would be awesome if we could have one or two images of musical notation showing consecutive steps not used in a cluster. Hyacinth 04:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It would seem that a tone cluster must be thought of as a tone cluster or appear to listeners as tone clusters. Why would this not be true? Hyacinth 06:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's a suitable GA category for this article. I've put it under "Music," obviously, and then under "Genres, styles and music eras," which is the best fit that I can find. Atonality is in that section, but it sits a bit uneasily next to articles like Alternative rock and Ska. If you feel I've put it in the wrong place, let me know and I will move it. (Or you can do so yourself, which might be simpler.) MLilburne 23:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
"In music" establishes the quickest and clearest context and is the only type of example given at Wikipedia:Lead section#Establish context. DCGeist, since this is the first discussion of this change in the lead section there can be no consensus. Hyacinth 04:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
In what way would changing the introduction to begin with "In music" stop the article from being a good article? Hyacinth 05:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Please point me to the discussion in which consensus was reach. Thanks. Hyacinth 06:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
This good article ought to have a section on notation of clusters, as this has evolved (at least on the piano) away from notating all the notes that are to be played in favour of a more graphic notation. It needs a few pictures that I shall try to find time to provide, unless someone else is equipped and has more time. (Posting in advance as feelings seem to run high on this page!) JH(emendator) 21:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I linked Ornstein, because I was re-reading the Other exponents subsection on its own, and came across the name: without a first name I was unable to get through a disambig page when I searched within Wikipedia for "Ornstein". This page is full of proper names, and Ornstein appeared more than a screen up (as it happens when I was reading) so I didn't spot it. IIRC, Wikipedia policy is that multiple links to the same page are a matter of judgement; I'm happy to be over-ruled, but then I'd like to see "Leo" added here: I don't think we can assume people read Wikipedia pages top to bottom. JH(emendator) 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Respond at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tone cluster/archive1.
I think we can get this to a featured article but the article has reach an impasse. Help with definitions and comments are welcome. Hyacinth 02:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this why peer review is under-resourced—because comments go into a void? – Outriggr § 10:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Respond at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tone cluster/archive1.
Well, I only saw Kraftwerk mentioned with their 1970 work. But also in later albums there ARE clusters! You only have to listen to Elektro Kardiogramm (2nd half). Aren't that clusters too?? -andy 84.149.124.27 ( talk) 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm uneasy about the cut-and-dried ruling out of notes from membership of a tone-cluster if they're sounded before or after a cluster (prolongation, yes?). Acciacciaturas are of course not admissable, but it's not an easy delineation to make. TONY (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Could someone put the used pictures on wikicommons for use in other wiki languages? Regards, DTBone ( talk) 14:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not correct. The modern keyboard is designed to play music in any of 12 keys. There just happens to be 7 diatonic scales which can be played on only white keys, and 5 pentatonic scales on black keys. However, there are (at least) 42 diatonic scales which require both white and black keys, and 28 pentatonic scales which require both (perhaps more) This caption should be improved -- 20:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I was led here through the featured article Leo Ornstein. Unlike many articles on music theory on Wikipedia, I found this one quite straightforward and, for a layperson such as myself, easy to understand. Reading the Ornstein article, I wanted to know what tone clusters were. I actually understand it now! Good job. Now if someone could help me understand serial music.... freshacconci speaktome 00:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I've spent (or wasted) far more time looking for Extremes of Conventional Music Notation than anyone I know of. When I wrote that something of Cowell's was "probably" the largest, etc., etc., or that something of Schwantner's was "perhaps" the largest, etc., etc., I qualified those statements based on over 20 years of seeing records of this type overturned by music I hadn't known about before. Then someone removed the qualifiers... I'm not sure my qualifiers were the best possible choices, but I'm very sure that making flat statements about these extremes isn't a good idea. I've re-added the qualifiers. -- DonAByrd 03:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 17:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
We need to disambiguate the words tone and note as used in different countries. To me (in UK) a tone is two semitones. We tend to use the phrase note cluster in the UK, since note is the word used for a particular identified pitch. Perhaps non-biased language should be used? See my comment on the talk page about the lead and consider the fact that later sections actually use the UK word... -- Jubilee♫ clipman 03:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I just read the wiki-article on Nick Drake and thought he could be mentioned in the "In popular music" section. Especially since this article seems to mention mostly piano players. Cheers Ineverheardofhim ( talk) 11:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
..comprising at least three consecutive tones in a scale.
Does this mean "pitches" (ie the UK "notes") or "two semitones"? If the former, then I suggest the following non-US/UK language: ..comprising at least three consecutive pitches from a scale. -- Jubilee♫ clipman 02:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
DCGeist, I see you've reorganized and repositioned the comments I put in about Richard Strauss (Alpine Symphony) and Albeniz (Iberia) - but you have also removed most of the detail I put in describing the detail of these uses of clusters - such as the fact that the Strauss was in finely divided strings, covering several octaves, and sustained behind tonal harmony in the winds, and the fact that the Iberia clusters consisted mainly of 3 or 4 notes, made up partly of minor seconds and partly of major seconds.
Do you disagree with what I said on those points? I do own the scores of both works, and the statements are definitely true.
Any problem if I put those points back in? Will you just remove them again? Those descriptive details do, it seems to me, help give the reader a clearer picture of the nature of these clusters. M.J.E. ( talk) 15:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Dan. I could respond to a few of your comments, although, since I apparently cannot add any more to this which can be accepted, I don't know if I'd be wasting my time even contemplating adding anything more to this article. Still, I'll tell you my thoughts, in case you're interested. Where I'm responding to a particular comment you made, I will first quote that briefly.
Unfortunately, we're unable to use most of the detailed information you provided about each piece, at least in the absence of independent sourcing. Information must be cited to reliable sources—please see our policy on WP:Verifiability. The descriptions you provided are on the borderline of what is referred to here as "original research," which is not allowed—please see our policy on WP:No original research. In sum, as our policy puts it, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
That does make things difficult for me. My position is that I know quite a lot about music, especially from Beethoven onwards, and that includes a lot of theoretical knowledge too. This has been acquired by a lifetime of study of scores. This has been done largely on my own, and I wanted to be a composer, so I always had a strong tendency to analyze music as deeply as I could. But I have had far less formal musical education than my actual knowledge would seem to suggest, so I don't have a great stock of books of the sort you would accept as verification. I might know a lot of stuff backwards, but be unable to point to any published work that actually says it in so many words. No doubt, for things I haven't just observed myself, I have in fact read them somewhere in some book in the dim, shadowy past; but I wouldn't have a hope of actually remembering where I read particular facts decades ago so that I can cite it now. The fact is, I would not be able to find books to back up dozens or even hundreds of musical facts that I know are true; although I suppose, if I looked long enough, I could find references. But I don't have the time to do that: life's too short to find references for dozens of musical facts I already know but can't find in a book. (Some articles have hundreds of footnoted references, just about one for every sentence in the article. In such cases, I am just amazed that anyone had the time to actually come up with all those! I can only assume this is feasible for people who already have an intimate knowledge of the sources they are citing.)
Although, in the points I made earlier, I would have thought the scores themselves would be a reference - the best, most direct one, surely. Anyone who can read music can see that the statements I made were true, and I disagree with you that they border on original research: I simply read what is plainly there; I am not inventing new theories about how to analyze the music, or anything like that.
If nonetheless the policy rules out the kinds of things I said (if I can't find a textbook that says them in so many words), I guess I cannot change that; but it would make me quite unable to contribute to Wikipedia knowledge I have which could be very useful.
That said, some of what you provided may be reintroduced if it is cited to the scores that you indicate are in your possession.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. How do you mean, cited to the scores?
Have you seen those scores yourself? If so, surely you can see that they back up what I said? Is that not good enough?
Here is our specific policy language relevant to the use of a primary source, such as a musical score: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source...."
I don't know if there's some obscure or subtle reason for this policy; but, on the surface at least, it sounds rather counterproductive to me. I would have thought that most of what I said was a straightforward, descriptive statement of what was in the scores.
"Access to the source but without specialist knowledge"? I'm not sure how to read that in the case of musical scores. It is the nature of musical scores that they mean nothing to someone who can't read music, which ability I assume may be regarded as specialist knowledge.
The following description of Iberia is clearly interpretive and thus unambiguously disallowed unless support by a secondary source: "These clusters can be viewed as extra notes added to the predominating harmony, or possibly as grace notes which are fully simultaneous with their resolutions instead of preceding them."
Well, maybe a bit more than other things I said. I think that's stretching it a bit, though. If someone *disagrees* with that, I would be interested to hear their reasoning. It seems a fairly objective, uncontroversial description of the clusters to me.
As I said before, secondary sources of the sort you refer to are a difficulty for me, because of my particular situation (musically knowledgeable, but with relatively little formal musical education, and little contact with the musical world generally). I suppose such references do exist - but I'm just not in a position to actually find them.
Other of your statements are more straightforwardly descriptive and are arguably allowable if cited to specific pages of the score.
You mean if I say such-and-such occurs in bar x of the nth movement, or whatever?
Well, I guess I can manage that. Just give me a few days - I don't have the scores handy now, but can find on-line copies when I have a faster connection (which I don't have at home, but do have access to elsewhere every week or so).
We would then have to consider the question of balance. The length of your treatment of these two pieces was quite disproportionate to the discussion of almost all the other individual pieces mentioned in the section (the major exception being Ives's Concord Sonata, whose clusters are particularly and verifiably famous).
I've read debates in other articles here on "deletionism" vs. "inclusionism", and I am quite strongly in the latter camp. If balance is required, then half of Wikipedia needs pruning, and I submit that this would gut it to the point of trivial uselessness - because lots of articles have imbalance of one sort or another in their various aspects. Rather, I would say the remedy would be for editors knowledgeable in the right areas to fill in some of the areas in articles that are underrepresented. So, while I agree that balance is desirable, I think it would be overrating it if it led to useful information being deleted from articles. I would rather achieve balance by raising everything to the highest level found in part of the article, than by reducing everything to the lowest common denominator.
The length of my treatment amounted only to a couple of sentences in each case, and hardly seems excessive to me, although I suppose that's a subjective judgement where we may possibly just have to agree to disagree.
So take a look at what we have now for the Albéniz and the Strauss, and think about what if anything might (1) usefully be added in the span of no more than a sentence to each passage and (2) inarguably be sourced to specific pages in the score (or, of course, to any reliable secondary sources to which you might have access).
No, I can't meet those conditions: information requires sentences to convey, and I can't convey two sentences' worth of information in one sentence (other than by artifically and clumsily expanding one sentence to the length of two). I could possibly look at Iberia and find specific passages to back up what I said. (I don't have the score handy right now, so I did write the passage without referring to it, feeling confident that my memory of what it was like enabled me to describe it accurately.)
* For Albéniz: "uses small clusters, usually of 3 or 4 notes...usually made up of a combination of major and minor seconds, occasionally including two adjacent semitones."
I'm sure that, if I find the score (I don't know where it is now - maybe I could check it on imslp.org next time I have a faster connection), I could find specific bars that back up what I said.
Though the language of the second segment needs to be cleaned up: "two adjacent semitones," in fact, constitute a "minor second." Perhaps you mean to be drawing the music theory distinction between a minor second and an augmented unison?
No, that isn't what I meant. I meant two actual adjacent semitone intervals, involving three notes - as in C-C#-D, or B#-C#-D. I wasn't distinguishing between the actual notation there, or between minor 2nds or augmented unisons. I was meaning to suggest that the clusters are made up of both major and minor seconds, with two minor seconds occasionally being adjacent.
* For Strauss: "in finely divided strings, [accompanying] tonal harmony and melody played by the brass and woodwind sections; these clusters are diatonic,...span several octaves, and are sustained for many bars at a time, very softly."
This is unquestionably true, and can be easily seen in the relevant passages of the score. You removed the bit about the Bb natural minor scale, which seems to me an interesting part of the detail.
Anyway, for what it's worth, those are my thoughts on this. Do I have any valid points?
P.S.:
I ran into an edit conflict when I tried to save this, because apparently you made a change to your post while I was working on the above. In it, you seem to have removed yet another detail from the proposed comment about Strauss: namely that the clusters accompany tonal harmony and melody in the winds.
I don't quite understand why you want to strip the details back as much as possible. It can be easily verified from the score. And surely it is more interesting and informative to read such details than merely that the piece uses long clusters sustained for a long time. (I was tempted originally to add that modulations in the tonal parts led to a brief bitonal conflict between the clusters (which remain in Bb minor) and the harmony in the winds, which moves through triads such as D minor and G minor. But I suppose you would consider it entirely over the top to add that. What happens when editors disagree, not on whether something is acceptable in content or not, but just on how much detail should be given?) M.J.E. ( talk) 04:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tone cluster. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the context of tone here musical tone, or musical note (as mentioned in the music disambiguation page)? MfortyoneA ( talk) 20:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Last spring and summer, Spencerpiers made a series of additions to the article that have expanded our understanding of the early usage of tone clusters. However, I am concerned that the heavy focus on the two Bach examples violates both WP:Verifiability and WP:Undue. I can't find a single verifiable source that has "identified" these as tone clusters, and even if we were all to overlook WP:Verifiability—which we really can't—they are obviously too minor as examples to bear the focus they're now given. Does anyone believe that there is a source (or sources) out there that identify these as tone clusters which they can track down? And does anyone believe there's a verifiable basis for claiming them to be vastly more significant than the many, much clearer examples mentioned in the article that don't have any media at all associated with them? As an aside, in terms of article design, their inclusion really makes the "Before the 1900s" section appear over-cluttered. — DCGeist ( talk) 00:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Apparently edit summaries are insufficient to deal with a misattribution problem. In 1721, André Cardinal Destouches and Michel-Richard Delalande produced a famous opéra-ballet in four acts titled Les Élémens. Delalande's brother-in-law, the violinist Jean-Féry Rebel, was at the time conductor of the Paris Opéra, and directed the first performance of the opera in 1721. Delalande died five years later. In 1727 and 1728, Rebel composed (in two parts) a purely instrumental ballet with the same title. It does not incorporate any of the Destouches/Delalande material, but does have the purely orchestral "Cahos" (Chaos) opening number with the famous tone cluster. The Destouches/Delalande opera has a completely different opening, also titled "Cahos", with three vocal parts, but no tone cluster. This is why I have changed the link, so it will not point to the wrong composition. It has therefore become a red link. No doubt Rebel's work ought to have an article of its own, and it would be helpful also if the article Les Éléments, which is about a modern French vocal ensemble, could include information about whether they took their name from the Destouches/Delalande composition (as seems most likely), or from Rebel's recently better-known piece. These three titles should also share the same capitalization scheme, as explained at MOS:FR. Both the initial word and the first noun are capitalized, as in the present title of the article on the performing group.— Jerome Kohl ( talk) 17:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The contention that Scott Joplin wrote clusters needs to be justified with at least one example. TheScotch ( talk) 17:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
If you allow minor thirds in a cluster as in the right-hand part of the currently notated example, then obviously the term "cluster" becomes meaningless. A cluster is a set of at least three notes no larger than a whole-step apart (however the steps are spelled) sounded simultaneously. You can't make a cluster out of augmented seconds or minor thirds. TheScotch ( talk) 17:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)