Talk:Glossary of music terminology/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Scope

I like this page, but I have a question about its scope; are we going to duplicate the entire list of musical topics? -- Merphant 08:48, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I see it as a list of pre-stub definitions of musical subjects. When they become enough for a stub they can be moved to the redirects.Hyacinth 08:50, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not happy with articles which could easily be more than stubs being redirected here (even if they are stubs at the moment). You make the reader pick through a lot of irrelevent info to get to what they want, and it also discourages expansion. I am going to restore a couple of things which have been redirected here - I don't see a problem with them being kept on this page as well, for reference (in fact, I think this page would work best a collection of brief definitions with links out to more comprehensive articles). --Camembert

I share this unhappiness. In addition, a lot of the articles being, or potentially being, messed with talk to a lot more than music (Assonance, Dissonance, Cadence) and will sometimes need major rewriting if the music stuff is just excised. Please stop doing it for now. Bmills 15:49, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Okay, stopped. In my defense, see Texture (music). Cadence has already been messed with, but not involving this article, see Cadence (music).Hyacinth 16:01, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

all betterHyacinth 19:32, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

clef.org

I can't get the clef.org glossary extlink on the page to work; all it shows is the main page. Is it just my browser (Mozilla/OSX) or is the site broken? -- Merphant 02:53, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The lack of a www in the address seems to have an effect - try it again now. --Camembert
Aha, that solved it. Thanks! -- Merphant 03:05, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wiktionary material?

Many of the entries on this page look like excellent candidates for Wiktionary, but they'll need parts of speech and formatting. If you're interested in helping enter them in Wiktionary, please see wikt:arpeggio for a good formatting example. Thanks! --Dvortygirl 9 July 2005 06:24 (UTC) (primarily a Wiktionarian)

External link

Would you all be offended, if I put an external link here to a website that has a multilingual music glossary? A website with a music glossary with 1.200 Italian musical terms explained in English, German, French and Dutch? The glossary is built on a database. Not all terms are visible in the alphabetic list (to protect it from being copied), but if people search for a term it is compared with all the exact terms and the possible typos. Take a look yourself: http://www.rowy.net/ Rowy 10.27, 18 September 2006 (GMT+01:00)

littered with quote marks

Why? Can't we remove them for easier reading and a better appearance on the page? Tony 03:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

O, Hi Tony. I agree about the quote marks. I edit here from time to time, but have never made a systematic change of the type you're thinking about. I'd certainly support it. The business with the quotes seems simply to have evolved. What's the best arrangement? Just removing all the quotes? But some do have significance, I think. – Noetica 03:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Noetica. You're right, some of the quote marks are functional, but I think there's a way of formatting the list without using quote marks as the default, as it were. I'll think it through and put an example below for your consideration. BTW, I found this article through a link on the BBC website for the Reith Lectures, which were presented this year by Daniel Barenboim. Tony 06:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That'll be great, Tony. We'll work together on this anyway, yes? (I waited for comment on that consecutives business, but there was not much response, really. I might propose something more concrete, simple, and manageable there, shortly.) As for Barenboim (um, what's the article, and where is it?), I have heard the first of the lectures, abd just a fragment of the second. I'll catch up with them all, I've decided. Delighted with what I've heard so far. Let's talk elsewhere about those matters, sometime. – Noetica 08:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the start of "A" as is, and below it my suggested new formatting, which is mostly possible using global search and replace on Word.

  • My reasoning for changing the italic to bold is that italic is slightly harder read, and there's tension between italic used for foreign and for English words.
  • I've removed all quotes, except where they're necessary to avoid amiguity.
  • I suggest that words listed here be bolded when they appear in the definitions of other words.
  • I've removed "or to be consistent.
  • I've removed the stop after "Ger" and "Fr" because I'm a punctuation minimalist, but if people don't like it, I'm fine if it's reinstated.
  • The definition of "arpeggio" is too long, IMV.

What do people think?

A

  • a, à (Fr.) – "at", "to", "by", "for", "in", "in the style of"
  • aber (Ger.) – "but"
  • a cappella – in the manner of chapel music, without instrumental accompaniment
  • accelerando – gradually increasing the tempo; "accelerating"
  • accentato – "with emphasis"
  • acciaccatura – "crushing": a very fast grace note that is "crushed" against the note that follows and takes up no value in the measure
  • accompagnato – "accompanied": the accompaniment must follow the singer who can speed up or slow down at will
  • adagietto – "rather slow"
  • adagio – "slow"
  • adagissimo – "very slow"
  • ad libitum (commonly ad lib) – the speed and manner are left to the performer
  • affettuoso – "tenderly"
  • affrettando – "hurrying", pressing onwards
  • agile – "swiftly"
  • agitato – "agitated"
  • al, alla – "to the", "in the manner of" (al before masculine nouns, alla before feminine)
  • alla breve – two minim (half-note) beats to a bar, rather than four crotchet (quarter-note) beats
  • alla marcia – "in the style of a march"
  • allargando – "broadening", "getting a little slower"
  • allegretto – "a little lively", or "moderately fast"
  • allegro – "lively", or "fast"
  • als (Ger.) – "than"
  • altissimo – "very high"
  • amabile – "amiable", "pleasant"
  • amoroso – "loving"
  • andante – "moderate tempo" just this side of slow, at a walking pace
  • andantino – slightly faster than andante (but earlier it sometimes used to mean slightly slower than andante)
  • animato – "animated", "lively"
  • antiphon – a liturgical or other composition consisting of choral responses, sometimes between two choirs; a passage of this nature forming part of another composition
  • apaisé (Fr.) – "calmed"
  • a piacere – "at pleasure"; Used to indicate that the performer does not have to follow the rhythm strictly
  • appassionato – "passionately"
  • appoggiatura – "leaning": a grace note that "leans" on the following note, taking up some of its value in the measure
  • a prima vista – playing something at first sight of the sheet music
  • arietta – a short aria
  • arioso – literally "airy"; in the manner of an aria; melodious
  • arpeggio – literally, like a harp. Used to indicate that the notes of a certain chord are to be played quickly one after another (usually from lowest to highest) instead of at the same moment. In piano music this is sometimes a solution in playing a wide-ranging chord whose notes cannot be played otherwise. Music generated by the limited hardware of video game computers uses a similar technique to create a chord from one tone generator. Arpeggios (or arpeggi) are also accompaniment patterns. See also broken chord in this list.


A

  • a, à (Fr) – at, to, by, for, in, in the style of
  • aber (Ger) – but
  • a cappella – in the manner of chapel music, without instrumental accompaniment
  • accelerando – gradually increasing the tempo; accelerating
  • accentato – with emphasis
  • acciaccatura – crushing: a very fast grace note that is "crushed" against the note that follows and takes up no value in the measure
  • accompagnato – accompanied, i.e., the accompaniment must follow the soloist, who may speed up or slow down at will
  • adagietto – rather slow
  • adagio – slow
  • adagissimo – very slow
  • ad libitum (commonly ad lib) – the speed and manner are left to the performer
  • affettuoso – tenderly
  • affrettando – hurrying, pressing onwards
  • agile – swiftly
  • agitato – agitated
  • al, alla – to the, in the manner of (al before masculine nouns, alla before feminine)
  • alla breve – two minim (half-note) beats to a bar, rather than four crotchet (quarter-note) beats
  • alla marcia – in the style of a march
  • allargando – broadening, becoming a little slower
  • allegretto – a little lively, moderately fast
  • allegro – lively, fast
  • als (Ger) – than
  • altissimo – very high
  • amabile – amiable, pleasant
  • amoroso – loving
  • andante – moderate tempo just this side of slow, at a walking pace
  • andantino – slightly faster than andante (but earlier it sometimes used to mean slightly slower than andante)
  • animato – animated, lively
  • antiphon – a liturgical or other composition consisting of choral responses, sometimes between two choirs; a passage of this nature forming part of another composition
  • apaisé (Fr) – calmed
  • a piacere – at pleasure; i.e., the performer need not follow the rhythm strictly
  • appassionato – passionately
  • appoggiatura – a grace note that leans on the following note, taking up some of its value in the measure
  • a prima vista – playing something at first sight of the sheet music
  • arietta – a short aria
  • arioso – literally airy; in the manner of an aria; melodious
  • arpeggio – literally "like a harp"; indicates that the notes of a certain chord are to be played quickly one after another (usually ascending) instead of simultaneously. In music for piano, this is sometimes a solution in playing a wide-ranging chord whose notes cannot be played otherwise. Music generated by the limited hardware of video game computers uses a similar technique to create a chord from one tone generator. Arpeggios (or arpeggi) are also accompaniment patterns. See also broken chord in this list.

Comment on Tony's proposal

Tony, I do like the sample that you have provided of the proposed "new look" for the list. I suggest you just go ahead, with a Word global search-and-replace on the whole thing. I'll then step in, if you like, and sift through the entire list, finding special cases that need quotes restored, or other systematic interventions. All fairly uncontroversial, I think. (Thanks for the link for the Reid lectures. Useful.) – Noetica 12:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'm wondering about "literally" and "lit.".
    • Consistent usage would be better; sometimes abbreviated, sometimes spelt out, usually absent where only a direct translation is provided (which is ncomfortably inconsistent—sometimes it's the default, sometimes not).
    • My dictionary casts doubt on whether this is the right term.
    • Can it be removed, so that where a direct translation of a foreign word is provided, this appears first (unmarked), followed by a semicolon followed by additional informaiton. Would this work (possibly with a note to this effect at the top?) Tony 13:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Fine work, Tony! I've been moved to modify the introductory paragraph, given that the article now looks so much better. See what you think of that. I'll go through the whole thing (probably this coming weekend), tweaking bits and pieces as promised. I like "literally", myself. No need to burden the reader with abbreviation of fairly infrequent words; and by a stretch of the pedantic imagination "lit." may be thought ambiguous. I'll think about your alternative suggestion, but I'm inclined simply to use the full form "literally" where I find a need for it. This can always be changed globally later. By the way, which dictionary casts doubt on whether it's the right term? It seems near enough to me. SOED has this:
In a literal manner, in the literal sense; so as to represent the very words of the original; so as to depict or describe the thing realistically; (emphasizing the use of a word or phrase) without metaphor, exaggeration, distortion, or allusion, colloq. with some exaggeration etc., emphatically.
– Noetica 01:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you like it, Noetica. You're right about "literally"; I was lazy and just looked up the adverb on my desktop encarta dictionary (= in a literal manner or sense; exactly). But they're much more forthcoming on the adjective:

1 taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory: dreadful in its literal sense, full of dread. • free from exaggeration or distortion : you shouldn't take this as a literal record of events. • informal absolute (used to emphasize that a strong expression is deliberately chosen to convey one's feelings): fifteen years of literal hell. 2 (of a translation) representing the exact words of the original text. • (of a visual representation) exactly copied; realistic as opposed to abstract or impressionistic. 3 (also literal-minded) (of a person or performance) lacking imagination; prosaic. 4 of, in, or expressed by a letter or the letters of the alphabet: literal mnemo.

It's Meaning 2 here, of course.

But I wonder whether we need it at all. To use "literally" consistently, it would have to appear a lot more. Looking up here, I see:

a piacere – at pleasure; i.e., the performer need not follow the rhythm strictly

where "at pleasure" is the literal translation, and the rest is an explicit description of the way in which the term might influence a performance.

This works, at least for me, without the addition of "literally".

Perhaps there are three types of text that may appear in the definitions, although not all may appear in each entry: (1) a literal translation, (2) an elaboration of this, and (3) a description of the effect of the word on a performance. May I suggest that they appear in that order, separated by semicolons and, for the boundary between (2) and (3), and "i.e.," as well? Tony 01:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've worked through the whole article, copyediting and regularising according to the points made above. Tony, I adopted a version of your suggestion and got rid of all instances of "lit." and "literally", using semicolons and "i.e.," instead. Where it would have been awkward if I had conformed rigorously to the pattern, I improvised a little. I think it's all better now, but no doubt a little tweaking is still in order. – Noetica 13:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks excellent at a glance. We should all be grateful to you! Will have a good look later. Tony 13:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

medley?

Anyone wanna write an article on Medley (music)? Tks --Ling.Nut 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rit. and Smorzando

Noetica write in edit comments:

Restored "rit." as an abbreviation for "ritenuto", which is well attested (e.g. at www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory5.htm) ... and smorzando, despite its sound in English, does not mean "smothered" (a reference would be needed for that claim).

"Rit.", according to the reference you gave, is short for both ritardando and ritenuto. The Oxford American also gives it as an abbreviation for both (with "ritardando" listed first). However, many other sources give it as an abbreviation for ritardando only: VT music dictionary, Merriam-Webster, The American Heritage 4th. (Anyone have a Grove's handy?) I'll edit the page to reflect the confusion over meaning, but ritardando is the primary meaning.

Smorzando literally means "extinguishing" (Oxford Am), "dampening" (Systran and here), or "absorbing or cushioning" (Freedict). "Smothering" was basically within this range of meanings. The explanation "decreasing in both speed and volume" is far too specific; the marking is a subjective affectation, and not just shorthand for "rit. e dimin." I'll edit to use "dampening / extinguishing."

Harvard Dictionary of Music gives rit. as abbr. for ritardando only, but says that ritardando and rallentando are synonyms, whereas "ritenuto properly calls for immediate reduction of speed." —Wahoofive (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
While it may be that "rit." abbreviates "ritenuto" more often than "ritardando" (and I agree that it abbreviates both), we have to be descriptive and not prescriptive. I'm glad that the article achieves this. As for "smorzando", it is from the verb "smorzare", which even in standard Italian has a range of secondary meanings; but its primary meaning is given by its etymology, and is "to die away" (ultimately connected with "morto" [dead], through "ammorzare", by a substitution of the prefix). Originally, I believe, "smorzando" did not involve any change in tempo, but only a diminuendo all the way to silence (which makes sense given the primary meaning just discussed). If this is so, it may be a good idea to note it as the original meaning in the article, since the difference would certainly be relevant in the interpretation of earlier music. I am away from my many books on these matters for a while; but when I get back to them I'll review the situation. – Noetica 22:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
With regard to the abbreviation rit., we now have one website which says it's both and three reputable dictionaries which say it's only ritardando). Wikipedia policies allow us to evaluate the reliability of sources; don't give us this "descriptive not prescriptive" baloney. One website doth not a credible alternative make. —Wahoofive (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Wahoofive, before you wax entirely emotive (with ill-founded talk of "baloney") you write: "we now have one website which says it's both and three reputable dictionaries which say it's only ritardando." In fact, however, so far in the notes to the article we have three sources citing rit. for ritenuto, and two of those are unquestionably "reputable dictionaries" (from Collins and Oxford). As I have said, I am away from my books for a while; but I'm damn sure that when I get to them I can find more testimony for rit. abbreviating ritenuto. Why bother, though? Why would we want to agonise over this matter? Clearly a good number of sources record that rit. is used to stand for both, and that is sufficient. We are trying to serve the needs of users; in this case, a proportion of them would be looking for the intended meaning of rit. in a score. Sometimes the meaning is ritenuto. I don't like that fact, and that uncertainty in usage, any more than you do. But unfortunately it remains a fact. – Noetica 22:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Please keep it civil, friends.

Re "smorz:" again, etymology is not current meaning. "Wisdom" comes from the same Indo-European root as "vision," but the etymological meaning of sight is now lost -- a blind man can be "wise." Similarly, I checked several Italian-English dictionaries, and none gave "dying" translations; all were "extinguish," "dampen," "cushion." It doesn't matter, though; I like the current state of the page.

Re "rit:" I've been taking a poll of fellow musicians on "rit," and all immediately identified it as "ritardando" without prompting. All were surprised that somebody would think it stands for "ritenuto." "Ritardando" is the primary meaning; obviously, however, folk consensus does not supersede sources. I like the page as is: it reflects the confusion, but identifies "ritardando" as the primary option. I would consider editing the page only if a more authoritative source (e.g. Grove's) gives some insight into the question.

Not to change the page, but by way of discussion: Noetica: can you think of an example of a score where a composer intends "ritenuto" when writing "rit."? I always write "riten." !melquiades 17:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

!melquiades, I will readily agree that etymology is not always current meaning. Two things to point out, though:
  • In Italian the original core meaning of smorzando, expressed in the -morz- element, is certainly obvious and prominent, so it differs radically from the case of wisdom that you cite. Furthermore, since this -morz- element is so obvious in Italian, it is not entirely surprising that it is often taken for granted (however ill-advised this might be, in a dictionary), and that therefore many dictionaries dwell instead on the applied and figurative senses of the term. In the context of this article, however, giving the core meaning is useful and informative.
  • A decision was made for this article that the primary meaning in the language would be given first, followed by meanings specific to the application as a musical term. In this case, there are many ways of expressing those applied meanings. I don't think that smothered is a good choice, among the many available. I think that choosing it is unduly influenced by a chance similarity of the words in the two languages.
As for your poll concerning rit., that seems like a useful exercise. But I note that you are in Minneapolis, and this may bias things. The sources that have it abbreviating both ritardando and ritenuto are predominantly British. (I can now add to these The Penguin Companion to Music, and The Concise Oxford Dictionary.) By the way, it would be interesting to do a poll this way: ask the single question "What abbreviations are used for ritenuto?".
I note that you are careful and evenhanded on several fronts, !melquiades. We have to meet the needs of users, so we must give proper respect to original meanings, current popular meanings, and even supposedly "mistaken" meanings, if they will be encountered in scores or elsewhere. At present, as I have said earlier, I am away from my resources. I don't know which composers, or which writers on music, have used rit. for ritenuto. But the mere fact that several recognised authorities allow this justifies our recording things as we now do. Two final observations: Grove's makes enough mistakes for us not to take it as giving the last word – on anything! And since scores cross linguistic boundaries, we need to respect the deliverances of reference works in other languages than English.
I am now making a small edit for smorzando, since it now seems to me that it always involves a diminuendo, but not always a rallentando. – Noetica 01:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed on the principle of giving the primary meaning in the language first. I'm just not sure that "dying" is actually within the primary meaning in Italian, simply because none of the dictionaries I checked gave it as a meaning. (NB: I'm not trying to defend "smothered" either, which though not entirely off, I grant is too much influenced by the false cognate.) The true meaning seems to be "extinguishing" or "dampening," and I'm not entirely comfortable with including "dying." Yes, the Latin "mors / mort" root is prominent in "smorzando" -- but it is also prominent in, for example, "mortified," a state one can be in without being even slightly dead.
I do not trust Grove's word absolutely either, but I do think it is more authoritative on musical questions than a general-purpose dictionary.
I suspect that if we did serious research on the rit / ritardando / ritenuto question, we would find that most musicians (1) have never really thought about it, and (2) do not even agree on what the distinction between ritardando and ritenuto is, much less how they're abbreviated! !melquiades 08:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, !melquiades. I agree about a lot of that. Now, I am still away from my beloved books. But the two small Italian-English dictionaries that I do have to hand both give die away as the meaning of smorzare when it is specifically applied to sounds. (These are the Collins Pocket Dictionary and the Oxford Minidictionary.) Neither gives smorzando, exactly, though this would be generally understood as straightforwardly formed from smorzare. Note that a larger Italian dictionary might give smorzando as a separate entry, but treat it as applying specifically to music; and in that case music-specific matters would be prominent in the definition, with anything to do with dying already treated in the entry for smorzare, including the implicit association through the element -morz-. Note also, by the way, that this element is close to the main word for dead in Italian (morto), while the mort- element in English is not cognate with our main word dead, so we should not be surprised if some English speakers fail to hear anything to do with dying in mortified. (I see, incidentally, that the huge and exhaustive French dictionary TLFI gives for smorzando only the sense en diminuant progressivement ["getting progressively softer"], lending support to my claim about the primary intention of the term in music.) Finally, I do accept that what I call secondary meanings (dimming, extinguishing, etc.) are present even in standard Italian smorzare, so I am happy with your recent edit that allows for this.
Turning to rit., I agree with you about most musicians! I note also that German Wikipedia has rit. abbreviating ritenuto, and not ritardando. How about that! – Noetica 12:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If we have some Italian-English dictionaries giving "dying" for smorzare, I am quite satisfied with that. My concern was that the meaning was only etymological, and not current. Etymology is secondary to current usage in establishing definitions.
Say, do you think "deadening" would be preferable to "dying" as a translation? Because we haven't beaten this dead horse enough.... !melquiades 18:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 09:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Eingang/Eingänge

Could someone more knowledgeable define this? I think its German for "entrance" and I think its meant to be short cadenza-like passages for a soloist between sections of a concerto (like a cadenza but much shorter). This is just an educated guess though. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Staccato: short and sharp, or only short?

The current article says that staccato is "an indication to play with a sharp attack, and briefly." I believe the "sharp attack" part of this is incorrect: staccato can be very light, with very little attack. A staccato dot accompanied by an accent mark would indicate a sharp attack. Staccato, however, does not inherently mean accented. I am editing the article to reflect this, but I want to throw it out for discussion in case others disagree. !melquiades 18:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it depends on what instrument is playing it. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been taught that staccato is best thought of as playing the notes with separation, as opposed to playing them "short". Just wanted to throw that idea out there and see what people think. I agree that playing notes in a staccato fashion has nothing to do with the articulation of said notes, unless otherwise marked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.137.7 (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Affrettando should redirect here, not to to Tempo

Affrettando redirects to Tempo, which doesn't define it. It should redirect to this article, which does. I don't know how to fix it, but it would be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.77.165 (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly reasonable. Done. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Others

Would it be proper to add to the list definitions of modern music related terms such as cover and lineup?--VMAsNYC (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Add an additional musical term

Tanto is not listed under the "t's". Similar to troppo, it means "too much", and like the expression "non troppo", "non tanto" means "not too much".

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.18.211 (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Leggerissimo

The definition is shown as "lighter than legato", but leggerissimo is the superlative of leggiero, not of legato. Leggiero means light, legato means smoothly connected. Maybe someone really expert on this stuff will see fit to change it. 70.249.215.141 (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC) Jack O'Flaherty

Thanks for seeing that, Jack; it is now gone. No need to hesitate about fixing things like that yourself. There is even a Wikipedia policy that says so. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

jazz terms and popular terms

Some of these terms are listed as jazz terms... why not move these to the jazz and popular music section and make this one more of a 'ligitamate' terms page?--Palijer (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

marcato musical tearm

marcato in music means tomark or accent or to be strong and loud and to do that on the clarinet and flute-blow harder trumpet,trombone,tuba,and any other brass instrument widen your lips. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.210.215 (talk) 10:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The article Uptempo was nominated for deletion

I have improved the article Uptempo and do not believe it should be deleted/merged. Downtempo and uptempo deserve their own page, they influenced many styles of music and and continue to do so today. While most people vaguely know what the term means, many do not know what music (actual songs) the term applies to, nor do they know it's history. This is often why they decide to look it up in a encyclopedia in the first place, this is why I decided to create the page after I found no good online source on the subject at the time. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

Request a definition for "deest"

You see it when a musical catalogue is listed (in place of a number). K. deest or HWV deest or whatever. I think its Latin for "missing" but I think it would be helpful to clarify what is meant by missing. Are the works newly found? Spurious? (I'm not sure myself). Someplace to link when this term comes up would be helpful. Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It does indeed mean "missing". Explanations are here and here. I'll try to add an entry to the glossary. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Done. The term can now be linked to with [[Glossary of musical terminology#deest|deest]] (=deest) or [[Glossary of musical terminology#desunt|desunt]] (=desunt). There is now also a REDIRECT deest (music). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks!DavidRF (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Alas, we still miss what is outside the narrow fied of Italian terms

... like "motif", form types, melody types, instrument families etc etc ... Would be a new article, and this should be renamed. - I would love to have a place to refer my students to with such ones ;-) Intuitive

Agreed. These seem to be musical score terms, not simply musical terms. For example, the terms "padiddle" and "back beat" are missing. Drums are musical instruments too, you know. ;) Tarview (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Meno Mosso

"meno: less; see meno mosso, for example, under mosso" — there is no meno mosso. The point is made, of course, but it's still a little confusing. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"meno mosso" does exist. However I've removed that "under".178.21.205.22 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Jazz Terms

There are several jazz terms on the list. I wanted to know if those should remain here because they are so common, be moved to the jazz list because they are jazz terms, or should show up on both. (14jbella (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)) (restoring accidentally deleted sig: see this - restored by DBaK (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC))

Move from "Glossary of music terminology" to "Glossary of music"

Is everyone sure that this move was a good idea? I personally think that it should be reverted, as "Glossary of music" could also refer to either a glossary of musical works, or a glossary of musical styles. While this page was as "Glossary of music terminology," it was far less ambiguous than the place that it is now. Should we look for a consensus for one way or the other?14jbella (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I wondered about that, and agree that despite the apparent redundancy, the previous name was much clearer and unambiguous. The move should be reverted. If I recall correctly, some other pages were also mentioned as having a redundant "terminology". Milkunderwood (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
See User talk:Alan Liefting#Moving glossaries for some discussion of blowback from this editor's peremptory and undiscussed moves. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Alan Liefting indicated that the term glossary refers to a list of words, and is therefore redundant, which seems to make sense. Should all glossaries be moved, therefore, for consistency to this now format?14jbella (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the redundancy is more apparent than real, and leads to confusion. In any case, Liefting is moving these peremptorily, with no warning or discussion. And reverting reverts. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed that "Glossary of music terminology" is clearer, and, well, just sounds better, than "Glossary of music". Whether or not it's redunant, the phrase "Glossary of terms" (and the like) is fairly common. —Mahlerlover1(converse) 08:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Also agreed -- "glossary of music terminology" is clear, and it ought to be moved back. Antandrus (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Another agreement -- "Glossary of music" could, without getting too esoteric, refer to a list of musical "atoms" or "phonemes" rather than the terms used to describe or direct them. Redundancy in technical writing is no crime; it has its uses, and is often encouraged. "Glossary of musical terms" sounds like perfectly standard usage to me, and leaves no room for misunderstanding. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Also, I fear that changing the names of all of these glossaries will result in many a double redirect, which will be quite tedious to fix. It seems like too much work with too little (if any) reward to me. I say keep "Glossary of musical terminology"14jbella (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Double redirects can be changed with bots. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I changed the name to Glossary of music to suit the policy at WP:CRITERIA which stipulates that article names should be precise and consistent amongst other reasons. To have the word "terminology" is redundant and unnecessary. Glossary of music is succinct and descriptive. The concerns raised above about the new name seem to be trivial in my opinion. Using a google web search to see what is the more common usage is not particularly helpful, but google books is tending to a "Glossary of music terminology" title. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it's time for an RfC. Not only for Music, but for all of Alan Liefting's peremptory moves made without warning or any discussion. His interpretation may have been good faith, but it remains only his own. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
No, it is based on policy at WP:CRITERIA. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:CRITERIA: "There will often be several possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus."
And: "These should be seen as goals, not as rules....It may be necessary to favor one or more of the principles behind these goals over the others. This is done by consensus."
Consensus here is favoring "Glossary of music terminology". —Mahlerlover1(converse) 07:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't the better phrase be "Glossary of music terms"? That seems to be what the real world prefers: compare this Google Books result with this one. And it makes sense: a glossary is a list of items. "Terminology", though, is a collective noun - you can't really have a list of it. Likewise, "Glossary of music" doesn't make sense. I'd go with "Glossary of music terms" - anyone with me? Dohn joe (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how useful these google searches are in resolving this issue. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
First line of your oft-referred-to WP:CRITERIA says "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by.". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently a formal RfC will be needed. The real problem is that Glossary of music is just one of many - apparently all - such glossaries that Alan Liefting has taken it upon himself to move. Please check out his User talk:Alan Liefting talkpage for further blow-back on other topics. Is this a question of hundreds of separate RfCs? FWIW I notice there that he has also asserted a very constrained and POV definition of the word "censorship", arguing that it cannot apply to the article Stop Online Piracy Act, and has arbitrarily deleted "[Category:Internet censorship]" from that article, apparently having moved on from Glossaries Wikipedia-wide now to a new WP-wide "clean-up" project involving Categories. Wikipedia surely must have some procedure for dealing with this mess other than instituting an individual separate RfC for each of his moves and deletions, all done with no discussion whatever. And he has re-reverted reverts made by editors interested in the various topics. I don't doubt that his activities have been good-faith, but at the same time they are all based on his cramped and POV reading of guidelines and policies. Milkunderwood (talk) 11:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Alan Liefting's pulling a fait accompli move, of the kind that WP:ARBCOM has sharply condemned in the past (you change hundreds of thousands of pages to be your way, and people give up fighting you because it'll be too hard to revert). He's moved hundreds and hundreds of pages to remove "terms" or "terminology" form the name, despite MOS:GLOSS actually recommending such wording and giving reasons why the usages are distinct! — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 11:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Why don't we take it to the arbitration committee for a final decision? And if the vote is to revert all of these moves, couldn't someone with rollback do that relatively quickly and painlessly? 14jbella (talk) 11:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
We don't need to involved Arbcom quite yet. We can revert all his moves reasonably easily and then undertake a more general discussion about the merits of removing "terms" or "terminology" from article titles. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't we revert his moves after we discuss it (if there is a consensus to) so that we're not just making the same mistake that he did?14jbella (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Not really. Returning to the pre-edit status quo and discussing the move is considered normal practice, we refer to it normally as WP:BRD. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, you're right, but note that BRD is in fact an essay rather than policy. However, see new posts at
There are hundreds of them. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Who said it was a policy? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
:-) No one. I'm not at all disagreeing with you. I've just seen WP:BRD waved like a bloody flag too many times, as though it were one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think it's use here is essential. This kind of mass moving should only occur with proper consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There's already full consensus on this talk page. I've gone ahead and moved it back on that basis. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Checking history, the original name was musical, not music, terminology; so I used that formulation. I didn't revert, because there were subsequent edits. There's already a redirect from Glossary of music in place. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I should point out that my title move made earlier today had exactly the same effect as a revert, but through a different procedure, to restore it to its exact previous form. While this discussion is still active, it might be useful now to think about the following:
  • Glossary of musical terminology
  • Glossary of musical terms
  • Glossary of music terminology
  • Glossary of music terms
Personally I'm happy with it as it has long been, and now restored; but I can see possible advantages to the other three. As to terminology vs terms, we might look to other WP glossaries for guidance. Musical sounds better to me than music; but here there is some ambiguity - is it the "terms" themselves that are "musical"? Milkunderwood (talk) 23:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Stringendo

Stringendo is not the same as accelerando. It means with gradually increasing intensity, which does generally lead to an increase in tempo, but also an increase in volume and intensity of expression. Stringendo is a much broader term than accelerando. Eroica (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

historical development of terms

is there material (or even a page on this site; maybe it is much too music-specialist for Wikipedia, which is admittedly a concern- perhaps some good reference elsewhere) on the development of terminology over time and in various places? Not just at the "beginning" and "end" (the Renaissance, or even pre-Renaissance, and now), but at a number of various points in between, at least. Baroque and early or middle-Classical manuscripts (and published works) (as opposed to modern editions thereof prepared by knowledgeable editors) can be, I think, tricky. (Admittedly, it's partially in hopes of becoming a somewhat more knowledgeable editor that I ask such a question, myself... still, it seems relevant to this page- maybe not? :) ) (As to places, one notices that some works- manuscripts, scores, ... by Italian composers, e.g., have a much more flexible use of Italian than those for whom Italian is not their native tongue; this is only to be expected. I still remember a string quartet (in manuscript at Internet Culturale) which contains among other things the marking "dispetto" (scornfully) - which fits the manner of attack being requested in context! Alas it was a hard word to read, but that's another story.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 13:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Louré

In a recording of Adam's ballet Giselle near the end of Act I as the final section of the Pas des vendanges, it is listed as Allegro un peu louré. Google Translate gives up on "louré", but a very old French dictionary suggests "notes tied together"; and separately, "droning". There must be a better way to describe this, to include here as an entry. ("Un peu" of course means "a little bit" or "somewhat".) Milkunderwood (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

According to Harvard Dictionary of Music, under Bowing: Louré or portato: A stroke useful in slow tempo to separate slightly each of several notes taken in a slur. It is indicated as in Ex. 8 [with tenuto marks]. It is used in passages of a cantabile character. —Wahoofive (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Think of the beginning of the Sibelius Symphony No. 2 -- that's the example I liked to use when I taught orchestration. It is impossible to get the effect of those gently pulsating notes if the bow changes direction on each note. Antandrus (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Verse amd Refrain

How is a "Glossary of musical terminology" complete without terms such as "Verse","Refrain", "Chorus",... etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.179.214 (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. For example, there is an entry for "run" (a set of notes) but none for "scale". Terms should be included on a consistent basis, even if the definitions are only links to other Wiki pages for main articles. Peterkp (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
See WP:WIP. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Edits by Gamewizard71

User:Gamewizard71 insisted in a considerable number of edits to transform this long-standing list from this to this. This is not an improvement. There are a large number of incomig links to terms and anchors in this article, so any wholesale rewriting is unacceptable. The article's lead specifies its purpose and that's that. A list with a different purpose has to be created under a different name. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Recommended mobile app for external links section

There is a website http://www.imusicdictionary.com that should be listed with your external links, and it also has a mobile app for teachers and students to use that aren't in front of a computer.

74.109.118.148 (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Adam Roseland

Missing Terms

In the labeling of a piece, sometimes the minor and major key signatures are denoted by -dur and -moll, respectively. I'm not quite sure of their meaning or origin, although they could come from the italian "duro" (hard) and "mollo" (soft), although this denotation is more often than not present in German versions of a piece as well. Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable than myself on the issue could insert these into the article. Eccomi 17:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK these are simply the German translations of "minor" and "major". --bdesham ★ 18:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes: dur means "major", moll means "minor". I will add to the list. BTW, I think "Gr." as an abbreviation is suspect - my immediate impression was that it was an abbrev. of "Greek" (its normal use) rather than "German". I'm therefore amending the relevant entries. 195.217.52.130 16:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

With regard to missing terms, I have a query about a SYMBOL: a pair of short parallel lines placed on the diagonal placed above and over the top 2 lines of a stave. Local term for it is "break" or "tramlines", with the meaning being a sudden stop, with the music continuing after a short pause (although a fermata is not written). Is this already defined elsewhere in music terminology?203.214.103.58 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi -- yes, it's a caesura (or cesura). In rehearsal people commonly call it "railroad tracks" here in the U.S.; "tramlines" makes sense too. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In the program for the Boston Symphony Orchestra performance of Rimsky-Korsakov's Capriccio espagnol they quote the definition of capriccio from The Harvard Dictionary of Music,

Capriccio: A humorous, fanciful, or bizarre, composition, often characterized by an idiosyncratic departure from current stylistic norms.

The program also mentions, in passing, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky's 1880 Capriccio italien and Mikhail Glinka's 1845 Capriccio brillante. Capriccio might be a worthwhile musical term to include. Dick Kimball (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

missing terms

Here are few french terms that could use translating: con sentimento and misterioso

I'm guessing it's something sentimental and the second one is mysteriously.. anyone know better? --A

I'm guessing it's Italian, not French. "With Feeling" and "Mysteriously", although the latter is very rare. 99.254.20.224 (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

R.H. = Right Hand L.H = Left Hand

m.s. = Don't know what it is cannot add it.

wikipedias should gather together and merge this with the italian. some time soon, so 'forte' articles can point or have a catogery to point --Nkour 14:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MS and MD, and their expansions, now added. Portamento details added. It is hard to know how much detail should be included. --Noetica 10:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Turn"--generally represented with a symbol that should probably be added to the page, but I don't know how to add such a symbol.

What about Main Gauche and Main Droite? I come across them more often than the other left/right hand terms. Also, I'm too timid to add it myself, but should ostinato possibly have some reference to "riff"? (the Jazz / rock term) 202.124.104.192 06:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Another missing term is "gaiamente". It means cheerful and is used to mark songs such as the Suzuki version of M. Marais' La Provençale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.215.182 (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glossary of musical terminology. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Abbreviations for languages

I found the "Fre" label extremely jarring, because as far as I know it is never used as an abbreviation for "French" in text. It seems that in 2015, user @Sondra.kinsey replaced all the language abbreviations with ISO_639-2 codes. (These are not abbreviations -- quote: "ISO 639 is a set of international standards that lists short codes for language names." There is no suggestion that these codes are intended to replace conventional abbreviations in running text.)

I would revert the edit, but don't see a quick way to do it. Any suggestions or comments? Imaginatorium (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Too many edits since then; reverting is not an option. Seems like it would have to be done manually :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't find those "abbreviations" jarring, but they can easily be changed with a sequence of find/replace operations. Which abbreviations would you like to see instead of User:Sondra.kinsey's ISO codes? Before that change, they were Ger, Fr, Port, Lat (or Latin), English, Polish. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm with the OP on the jarringness (jarridity?, jardom?). Michael's list above seems good. I checked in my personal bible ODWE for the same set and found that for those languages it lists: Ger., Fr., Port., (Latin has no abbreviation listed), (English has no abbreviation listed), Pol. ODWE's use of points is perhaps not required here as they are mostly (/all?) separated by parentheses. It does not list Italian for which we currently have "Ita" - this also seems wrong to me: I would have thought "It." or "Ital." but "Ita" is just awkward. Being stuck on the use of three-letter codes is sometimes NFU, frankly. Eng for English sounds sensible. If it were edited along those lines then it would, I think, read more elegantly. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Imaginatorium: I'm sorry if these abbreviations are unfamiliar or unpleasant for you. I simply wanted to standardize what had previously been inconsistent use of abbreviations (sometimes spelled out, sometimes with period, alternating between "Ital" and "It"). It doesn't appear that there is a standard set of abbreviations for languages. I looked through Language code and didn't find anything suitable. I chose ISO 639-2B because they are english-derived, but the two-letter ISO 639‑1 codes (Fr, En, De, La, It) are actually more commonly used. Both of these are languages codes rather than English abbreviations. I went ahead and changed it to the abbreviations y'all have suggested, but welcome further conversation about which abbreviations are best. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's only my opinion but I absolutely love it how you have it right now, and thank you for all your work revising it to this. I do see that it is not quite a standard, but rather a bunch of preferences (albeit some pretty weightily-preferred ones); even so, I find it highly acceptable in its current form. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses, I think you missed my point slightly (Sondra.kinsey): running text in English should use (widely and easily understood) abbreviations in English, such as "Ger." for German. The ISO 639 codes are just that: codes; useful if you happen to be setting up a multilingual encyclopedia, for example, but DE is not an English abbreviation of "German". In this particular case, I think the only languages whose names need to be abbreviated are French and German, though arguably it would also be helpful to mark Italian as Italian (abbrev. "It.") Often a glossary of musical terms will only list non-English terms, in which case it makes sense for Italian to be the default -- but this list includes lots of English terms, which really should be distinguished. Any other languages, such as Portuguese could/should be written out in full. Further, when using abbreviations, both glossed somewhere in the text, and intuitive and widely accepted (@DBaK: this makes them "standard" in the ordinary sense of the word), it is IMO utterly unnecessary to have these ugly popup widget things cluttering the text. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a note in the list's introduction, "Unless specified, the terms are Italian or English." so there's no need to annotate terms in those languages, and they should be removed when convenient. Having "keyboardist" and "measure" marked as "English" seems unnecessary. I think the current state, using "Fr.", "Ger." etc, is quite satisfactory, especially because they are augmented by the pop-up abbreviation feature. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Archiving

This Talk page seems to be getting a bit long, with some very old and now-irrelevant topics, and I was wondering about setting up automatic archiving for it. Views please? Thanks DBaK (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks to @Michael Bednarek for setting up the archiving. It appears to have worked well. As often happens, a few sections have been stranded - I do not know chapter and verse on this but it is often some minor layout or format snags (for example in date formats), perhaps only in older edits, which have prevented the bot from finishing its job. One way to fix it is to try to get all the formats right then wait for the bot to run again but I have done this (elsewhere) and it's a pain. Instead I am doing the quick and dirty fix of hand-editing the sections, and with this same edit I have removed to Archive 1 the five left-behind bits. There I will try to sort them out into a reasonable order. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 Five sections manually archived from here; one section in Archive 1 moved into better chronological order. I'm leaving it alone now. I think/hope the archiving will now run as expected. DBaK (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

BADHEAD fixes

Jennica, I like your WP:BADHEAD fixes. As you obviously know, your process has left a few anomalies, where a search/replace has left us with an unspaced chain of things like ''''' where there was perhaps previously a space and semicolon. Er, or something. I've looked at trying to fix a few before realizing I am far too old and stupid (only one of these is truly diagnostic!) to do a good job unguided. So:

  1. Do you want help with this or shall I (and optionally others) leave it to you to sort out and
  2. If you do want help, is there a standard "recipe" for the fix, such as "all 5x single quote need to become 2x single quote, semicolon, space, 3x single quote" ... er ...
  3. Or something!

Cheers, DBaK (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: (I saw your last message but you ended up reverting it. The ping function works great for future reference :-)) - I looked it over and only found one discrepancy and fixed it, unless there is something I'm not seeing? --Jennica✿ / talk 08:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jennica: - Thanks: I will try to remember Ping. In my previous attempt it seemed to have encapsulated your entire user page and reproduced it here ... which is not quite what I was hoping for! I suppose my worry is that there will always be one or two we've missed. Right now, Dur and Dynamics are a bit off ... I don't have the time or skills to work out how they got there so maybe it's nothing to do with your changes? Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: - oh! thank you. i fixed it. sometimes it can be hard to see with so much text. --Jennica✿ / talk 08:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jennica: Thanks!! - and if there are no more, then great - I was maybe just unlucky picking up a few early in the alphabet. Recitativo might be another (repaired now) but I have not done a thorough trawl. Thanks very much DBaK (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't see how the previous format of this list contravened WP:BADHEAD. It properly used MOS:DEFLIST and it ought to be restored that way. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Jolly good. Thank you for sorting out a niente, a nessuna cosa as you did. DBaK (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The rival formats busines is beyond me, but I am puzzled by this nessuna cosa. My Italian is very rusty, but it sounds wrong to me: "a niente" is the assertion of a nothing to which something is to go, while "a nessuna cosa" is the denial of the existence of anything to which it would go. First search hit on "nessuna cosa" exemplifies this: "L'uomo libero a nessuna cosa pensa meno che alla morte" -- there is nothing that the free man thinks of less than death. You can use the same "nothing" in English, but not in Italian. I'll be bold and remove, but of course if anyone has any evidence of it being used widely (perhaps by non-Italian speakers, which is another problem)... Imaginatorium (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment:

  • Not in OED
  • Not in Grove (etc, online)
  • Inserted here in 2009 by J424 who seems no longer with us and didn't contribute that much, not that that makes them a bad editor.
  • I can't find it in any musical context other than a copy of this page (doh!)
  • J424 seems to have been fond of Nielsen. I draw no conclusion from this.
  • Good catch Imaginatorium! We can always put it back in when someone finds it in the 2nd trumpet part of a Nielsen symphony or, like whatevs. Till then I think that the Goodbye treatment is the correct one.
  • I think I had probably better stop commenting here as I clearly have the Reverse Midas Touch.

Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you mister dba__ doing business as what did K stand for? I found an even more amusing one on the ja wikipedia page (ja:欧文西洋音楽用語の一覧), where we were told that sim basso is the Italian for tuba. A web search for "tuba"+"sim basso" yields a handful of pages saying the same thing, but only in Japanese or Korean. There is also the wider issue of all the mistakes made by non-speakers of Italian; Rachmaninoff wrote things like Allegro con possibile, which a Russian speaker might help us decode, but... Imaginatorium (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Knackered. See User:DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered and this. Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"bar"

The term, "bar", seems to be missing. I was looking for it here, but I had to go to a dictionary to find it, even though I was pretty sure it was musical terminology. I'm not an musical expert or editing expert here, but I wanted to make it known that there was at least one person interested in seeing what the musicians' definition of "bar" was and disappointed not to find it here. -AlexFolland (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Concerto

Shouldn't 'concerto' be included on the 'Glossary of musical terminology' page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.246.252.101 (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and it has been added. (It was a curious omission, since so many other entries already referred to the term.) As a general matter, if an entry seems obviously missing, just go find a source and add it. WP:Be bold!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 19 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved, the arguments put forward by the nominator being compelling. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


Glossary of musical terminology → Glossary of music terminology – Per WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE, and to be consistent with so many other "Glossary of subject-noun terminology" lists. The terminology is not "musical" (an instrument, a talent/skill, a production might be); it is simply about music. I would, however, not move to this "Glossary of music", because this in fact about a terminology, i.e. a rather pre-defined and consistently applied system of terms, not random words and phrases that pertain to the subject (contrast Glossary of blogging); and because "Glossary of subject-noun" by itself is often confusingly ambiguous (e.g. Glossary of computer science is clear, while "Glossary of computer software" could easily imply some kind of software list or software-category list to some readers, and the article is sensibly at Glossary of computer software terms). "Music" is one such case, and "Glossary of music" would seem to mean an index of genres/styles to too many readers for us to use that. That is to say, we do not impose CONCISE as the cost of PRECISE and RECOGNIZABLE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Why not just musical terminology or glossary of music if "concise" is the guiding principle? 216.8.143.101 (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Because WP:CONSISTENT; we have a convention for how to name glossaries, a specific kind of stand-alone list article. While there is some content-related variance (is it an article on a terminological system? on non-systemic jargon or slang? A more specialized kind of term–definition list?), we do start them with "Glossary of". Why not to use "Glossary of music" was already covered above in some detail; please read RM nominations before responding to them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Glossary of music would also tie in with Category:Glossaries of music. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
See above. Note also that WP:CONSISTENT doesn't per se apply as a guideline between categories and articles (only to mainspace), but that WP:CFD#SPEEDY applies an adaptation of it, to move categories to be consistent with article titles when feasible. It does not operate in the opposite direction. There is no principle by which we rename articles to better agree with category names, which are often – as in this case – more general due to the broad nature of their contents. Not all of the articles in the category are similar in type nor in title, and it might not even be feasible to make them all have exactly corresponding titles due to their content and structural dissimilarities.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. The other suggestions are also OK with me. Dicklyon (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Musical" can in fact mean simply "about music". There is nothing wrong or confusing about it. 216.8.143.101 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Followup note (this closed before I noticed the anon's comment): Encyclopedic writing isn't about what something "can mean", to someone somewhere in some particular context; it's about (and is most especially about in article titles) what a term is most likely to mean to the largest number of users, and always with an eye to eliminating potential ambiguity. See WP:CRITERIA for a summary of these principles, the most pertinent being precision, naturalness, and recognizability, which are at the top of the list, with concision and consistency last, for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:02, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

narrante

If there are no objections, I will change the definition of "narrante" to "Narratively" rather than "Narratingly", which I don't think is a word. If I've misremembered what narrante signifies on the music page, please feel free to correct the entry!

AreThree (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I just changed it to "Narrating", which is more literal, since it is just the adjectival participle (or whatever it's called, but the adjective form as "narrating performer", rather than the adverbial participle as in "he was narrating slowly", which would be narrando). Imaginatorium (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Colla parte and "follow"

diff

In the Grove dictionary entry on "Colla parte" there is mention of "possibly flexible" tempo, which helps motivate the choice of "follow" as being appropriate here. Symphony players follow the beat of the conductor. The violin section follows the concertmaster. One partner in a couple dance such as a waltz follows the lead of the other, and both follow the beat provided by the band. (Yes, dancing and music are very much analogous performances.) In none of the above cases should there be any appreciable lag.

Just because "follow" without context might possibly denote a distance or delay between the leader and follower, that does not mean colla parte entails any such lag or delay. Occam's razor suggests that the sense being used is "go along with" not "follow from a distance." How closely a musician follows another part depends on interpretation, prevailing style, and the preference of a director or consensus of an ensemble. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This part is where you are misunderstanding the prose: "that does not mean colla parte entails any such lag or delay." The point of this definition is not to argue that colla parte entails such lag. To the contrary, the point is to make sure a novice reader (a likely user of the glossary) understands that "follow" in this case does not mean "lag." Without further information they may interpret it that way. Like many of the definitions in this glossary, a number of details are missing.
Here is the definition in German Wikipedia for comparison: Colla parte (Italian "with the part"), abbreviated cp , is a musical instruction originally in a choral piece. It states that the accompaniment by the instruments is (largely) identical to the vocal parts. The instruments serve as support for the vocal parts or replace missing parts. A good example of colla parte is Venetian polyphony. In a broader sense and more recently, the term colla parte is also used when the rhythm, tempo and expression of the accompaniment of a single, independent main vocal part ( opera , cantata ) has to be matched. As an abbreviation in a score, colla parte means that one part should play the melody line, for example in flute or first violin, without writing it out again. Usually only a wavy line indicates the duration of the colla parte notation (cf. Faulenzer ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismartin76 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
No, I understand your concern that a musical novice might overthink a dictionary definition, believing it to mean that colla parte could mean repeating another instrument's line after some unspecified delay. I do not share that concern. Saying that another part (or voice) "should be followed" seems to me like simple understandable English; misunderstanding it would take extra effort. Just plain Bill (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I can assure you that I myself had trouble understanding the definition because of the use of the word "follow." So even people with a background in music can be confused by that word. It's also noteworthy that the Oxford reference doesn't use the word follow. Given that follow has multiple interpretations, there is no advantage to be gained by using it, so it would be better to use a word that can't be misunderstood. Chris (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
OK, how about "An indication that another (written-out) part should be imitated." Does that work for you? I really want to keep it as brief as the other entries in this list, say, no more than a single line or so. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
"imitated" is fine with me. I don't think brevity is a primary goal. The goal of the glossary is help people understand concepts, and most glossaries (and dictionaries) do this by providing at least a paragraph so people can comprehend all the important aspects of a definition. When I have learned concepts and taught concepts—I'm a college professor—I have found comprehensive descriptions and specific examples to be useful. I may expand other definitions in this glossary over the next few months, so that there are enough details for the concept to be comprehended.Chris (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

That's the beauty of hypertext. Comprehensive descriptions can be kept easily accessible as links (e.g. to an English version of that German article, should someone be moved to create it) leaving an uncluttered summary for those in the audience who prefer that. Be well! Just plain Bill (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I find this discussion mystifying. Saying that the accompaniment should "follow" a soloist or whatever is completely clear. (OK, now there should be a pause of several minutes until readers have followed the argument?) But anyway, "imitate" is simply wrong. Colla parte is an Italian expression: in some particular circumstances it may have gained a very specific meaning, which might mean "imitation", but in others it will not. Composers vary hugely in their grasp of basic Italian, but some at least will write it meaning simply colla parte, meaning "(keep together) with the part". I can't honestly remember seeing colla parte in a score, but I have seen colla voce in opera many times, and it simply means the conductor follows the soloist, rather than the other way around. Here is a definition from "A new dictionary of music" (Arthur Jacobs, pub. Penguin): "colla parte, the tempo and expression of the accompaniment to be accomodated to that of the soloist". (Just in case you need a proper printed book to confirm what I am saying...) Imaginatorium (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
You're totally right that "imitate" is the wrong word, even without the technical meaning of "imitation" in fugues and the like, and anyway often it refers to an accompanying part which is providing supporting harmony, not necessarily doubling the melody. But I'm uncomfortable with "follow" also, for some of the reasons above. I'd vote for "stay together with." —Wahoofive (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Is it wrong or confusing to say that musicians follow the cues of a conductor? (Should we start calling that individual "the giver of the tactus" because a "conductor" could also be a wire carrying electricity? No, that would be silly.)
I agree that "imitate" is a suboptimal substitute for "follow," here used in the sense of "accommodate the tempo, expression, phrasing, and possible rubato of a leading voice, where "voice" is used to mean a vocal or instrumental line." IMO, that is nearly two dozen words worth of excess baggage attempting to "clarify" a single apt word which ought to be unambiguous in context. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I could not understand what "follow" meant in this context, which is evidence that "follow" is not completely clear. The best definition I found is in the Oxford reference which separates the two senses of colla parte. One sense is that one player without a written part plays the same notes as another player with the primary part. The second sense is that one player keeps the same tempo as the primary part. "Imitate" works somewhat well for both. "Stay together with" works for the second definition but not the first. Chris (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Musical examples for col legno, col sordino, and similar concepts

One goal of the glossary is to get readers to truly understand what a concept means, which is only possible with audio for some terms, like col legno, col sordino, sul ponticello, etc. Glossaries that appeared in print could not, of course, include audio examples, but given that this is online, we can include a link to audio clips of authorized recordings (on say YouTube) of brief passages that use these techniques. For col legno, I was thinking of pointing to the a passage in a Bartok quartet. What do others think? Chris (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Musical Term

I would like to propose a new musical term for an ancient, yet current musical activity.

I've done a slight search and could find no current term. If you know of one already existing for this activity, let us know.

Even if some existing term is available, perhaps my suggestion might augment or even replace it.

I propose that a term for singing syllables sung to tunes, as in "La de da" or Dum de dum", henceforth be reffered to as syllabacanting (syl lab a can ting) with accent on the syllable lab. 174.195.87.168 (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You describe something like lilting. Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, is about stuff that already exists. It is not in the business of coining new words. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glossary_of_music_terminology/Archive_1&oldid=1211223656"