Talk:Mason Green's New Common Practice Notation: Difference between revisions
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
→Published Sources: new section |
||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
Bozu. | Bozu. | ||
== Published Sources == | |||
Ok, I've done a literature search, and I'm going to double down on the "b1" or "1b" and "bI" / "Ib" notation as being generally unacceptable... | |||
Please review any and/or all of the following literature: | |||
Friedrich Wilhelm Marpurg, Anfangsgründe der theoretischen Musik (Leipzig: Johann Gottlieb Immanuel Breitkopf, 1757): 34. | |||
Arthur Foote and Walter Raymond Spalding (1905). Modern Harmony in Its Theory and Practice, p. 5. Arthur P. Schmidt. | |||
W. S. B. Mathews (1909). "Editorial: Prof. White's Harmony and Ear-Training", The Journal of School Music 1, no. 9 (June): 260–63. | |||
Smith, Uselma Clarke (1916). Keyboard Harmony, p. 15. The Boston Music Company. | |||
Stefan Kostka and Dorothy Payne (2004). Tonal Harmony (Boston: McGraw-Hill): 21. ISBN 978-0-07-285260-8. | |||
Jim Aikin (2004). A Player's Guide to Chords & Harmony (San Francisco: Backbeat Books): 32. ISBN 978-0-87930-798-1. | |||
Michael Pilhofer and Holly Day (2006). Music Theory for Dummies (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.): 113. ISBN 978-0-7645-7838-0. | |||
Andrew Surmani, Karen Farnum Surmani, and Morton Manus (2009). Alfred's Essentials of Music Theory: A Complete Self-Study Course for All Musicians (Alfred Music Publishing): 135. ISBN 0-7390-3635-1. | |||
I suggest, that, for the sake of clarity, and given the context of the article, being that it is entitled "Chord Progressions in the 19edo-family scales," that the table be edited to reflect more clear terminology. If we wish to expand the table to include some alternative nomenclature, that's fine, too, but might make things a bit untidy. | |||
--- | |||
I suppose all of this is because, as I see it, the table included with this particular article is the prime example of why I feel so stupid when I try to read this wiki. The terminology used here is the polar opposite of self-explanatory. For example, the term "hygrant" is used here for the mediant chord. There is no need, in this particular context, to make up a new word for something, and I did a text search - as of 30 April 2019, the term "hygrant," out of all the internet, only exists on this one particular page. On it's own, sure, no problem, but this sort of thing is rampant on this wiki. I see it often enough browsing here that I begin to wonder if we are trying to willfully obfuscate the information to confuse newcomers to xenharmonicity. Hey, there's an example of a self-explanatory term "xenharmonic." I didn't have to look that one up the first time I saw it. On the other hand, when I see something like "caesiant," I have no idea if it has something to do with cheese, roman emperors, or the periodic table, then I see that it's a "blue" chord. And... I feel stupid again, since I have no idea what that means, either. Does anyone actively use these sorts of terms? | |||
[[User:Bozu|Bozu]] ([[User talk:Bozu|talk]]) 20:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC) | |||