From: "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] The boundaries of OR (contd) To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Message-ID: b8ceeef70612222344k3e5ba806ub0285a333ca38ca5@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 12/22/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
Nit-picks/genuine questions (my musical literacy is almost nil):
what
is "the" key of a piece of music which modulates into many
different
keys and has different key signatures marked within the score? Is
it
a general rule or custom or convention that the first key signature which appears in the score is "the" key signature?
I think convention is that the first key signature is "the" one. But for certain styles, it's certainly possible to have an introduction in a different key...it would be very simplistic to imply that any lay person could successfully determine the key of any piece by following rules listed in Wikipedia.
Nit-pick number two: how do you tell by looking at the music
whether
it is in C Major or A Minor? That is, can you always unequivocally tell the key of a piece of music by glancing at it, or is judgement sometimes involved?
To a musical expert, it's usually pretty clear, but there are exceptions. And don't forget atonal music which is usually written without a specific key signature (ie, superficially like C major and I minor). And some music actually does have a "key" but was originally published with no key, using accidentals instead. You would be wrong to describe such a piece as being in C major...
So, this was a bad example, but that's probably all.
No, these observations mean that it was a GOOD example. There are always issues like this that arise in practical situations. In this example, if the key is obvious (that is, anyone who understands music notation would agree on what the key is), then we can write "the key is E-flat". If the key is not clear for some reason, then deciding the key becomes original research and we need to go looking for a published source that says what the key is. The boundary between the two cases is not precise, but that's life. Anyway it is "safe" in the sense that if one editor writes "the key is E-flat" when it isn't completely obvious, someone else will come along and slap a "citation needed" on it (preferrably with a note on the talk page).
Zero.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
zero 0000 wrote:
From: "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com
On 12/22/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
Nit-picks/genuine questions (my musical literacy is almost nil): what
is "the" key of a piece of music which modulates into many different
keys and has different key signatures marked within the score? Is it
a general rule or custom or convention that the first key signature which appears in the score is "the" key signature?
I think convention is that the first key signature is "the" one. But for certain styles, it's certainly possible to have an introduction in a different key...it would be very simplistic to imply that any lay person could successfully determine the key of any piece by following rules listed in Wikipedia.
Nit-pick number two: how do you tell by looking at the music whether
it is in C Major or A Minor? That is, can you always unequivocally tell the key of a piece of music by glancing at it, or is judgement sometimes involved?
To a musical expert, it's usually pretty clear, but there are exceptions. And don't forget atonal music which is usually written without a specific key signature (ie, superficially like C major and I minor). And some music actually does have a "key" but was originally published with no key, using accidentals instead. You would be wrong to describe such a piece as being in C major...
So, this was a bad example, but that's probably all.
No, these observations mean that it was a GOOD example. There are always issues like this that arise in practical situations. In this example, if the key is obvious (that is, anyone who understands music notation would agree on what the key is), then we can write "the key is E-flat". If the key is not clear for some reason, then deciding the key becomes original research and we need to go looking for a published source that says what the key is.
This is where you give the NOR rule an extremist interpretation. Somebody also has to decide whether the key is clear or not. Neither can you tell from the simple statement, "the key is E-flat", whether it was stated on the original composition, or whether it was worked out by an editor who happens to be musically knowledgeable.
The boundary between the two cases is not precise, but that's life. Anyway it is "safe" in the sense that if one editor writes "the key is E-flat" when it isn't completely obvious, someone else will come along and slap a "citation needed" on it (preferrably with a note on the talk page).
The there is a difference of opinion, and very few of us are likely to have a musical score in front of us to say one way or the other. The score itself is the body of musical fact. Establishing the key involves the application of the rules of musical theory to that body of fact. It's a descriptive operation in a specialized field.
The magazine "Adbusters" takes pride in not having numbered pages. If I wanted to cite something from that magazine, and had to number the pages myself to do this, the logical extension of your argument would be that my page numbering exercise would be original research.
Ec