Talk:Set (music)

?

That addition makes no sense. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.130.66.5 (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2006

Your comment makes no sense since you don't say what addition you are talking about or why it doesn't make sense. Hyacinth (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Woah

Did anyone else notice that the example provided ("0 11 3 4") is calculator talk for "hello?" V-Man737 03:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Forgive me if I'm making an obvious mistake, but I don't understand the "calculation" in the fourth box on this page. Why does adding 8 semitones to 4 given an answer of 5? Why isn't it 12? (or back to zero). Please can anyone kindly explain?. thanks. --Astronautomens2 12:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The "calculation" doesn't appear correct because the second group of 4 notes is not a transposition of the first 4 as the article states. The numbers do properly correspond to the notes given though so I don't know where the mistake might be. Can anyone with access to the book cited check for accuracy? --Drberg1000 16:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Providing historical, biographical information regarding the formation of these concepts (names, dates, cultural relevances, etc.) would greatly improve my understanding. --[user:magdalenemariefrylxky]

page is now correct

Drberg1000 was correct. The illustration originally on this page looked like this

The first set being:

0 11 3 4

The second being the first transposed up eight semitones:

  0 11 3 4
+ 8 8  8 8
  --------
= 8 7  9 5

and was mathematically incorrect, and in fact is not even the procedure Webern used to construct the prime-form of the row. I've corrected it and given a complete explanation. Monz (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

further comments

I'm glad i finally fixed it -- it was bugging me ever since the first time i saw it, but Webern's row construction is so complex that i couldn't figure it out myself after the first try. Luckily, this row was discussed in an essay in "Perpectives on Contemporary Music Theory", which i have, so that helped. Monz (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed

• Though set theorists usually consider sets of equal-tempered pitch classes, it is possible to consider sets of pitches, non-equal-tempered pitch classes, rhythmic onsets, or "beat classes" (Warburton 1988, 148; Cohn 1992, 149).

• Two-element sets are called dyads, three-element sets trichords (occasionally "triads", though this is easily confused with the traditional meaning of the word triad). Sets of higher cardinalities are called tetrachords (or tetrads), pentachords (or pentads), hexachords (or hexads), heptachords (heptads or, sometimes, mixing Latin and Greek roots, "septachords"—e.g., Rahn 1980, 140), octachords (octads), nonachords (nonads), decachords (decads), undecachords, and, finally, the dodecachord.

I removed the above as sources where not provided. Hyacinth (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

How extremely odd. I can see three sources in the material you removed: Warburton 1988, Cohn 1992, and Rahn 1980. I do observe that a citation was requested (a very long time ago) for the claim that set theory may also be applied to pitches (as opposed to pitch classes) and non-equal-tempered pitch classes (whatever that might mean). I propose that this material be restored, with the exception of the challenged material.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Pressing the issue: so if I put some information in the article, say:

It is also possible to consider sets of birds (Lake 2012, 3).

that would be fine? Hyacinth (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Relevant material is one thing, irrelevant material another. Your reason for removing evidently relevant material is that it was not referenced. One phrase was challenged for just this reason, and should have been removed; two other claims bore references, so why do you think they should be deleted?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't being silly. The question is twofold: how lousy can a contribution be and still be kept, and how much work are we expected to do for other editors? Hyacinth (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I agree about not being obligated to do work that is actually the responsibility of other editors. How does removing evidently referenced claims fit into that framework? I agree that Warburton 1988 does not immediately ring a bell with me, and there is no list of References (as there used to be with this article), but Rahn 1980 is fully documented here, and most knowledgeable folk will know what Cohn 1992 refers to, don't you think? I don't know about how "lousy" this contribution might be—it seem fairly reasonable to me, apart from the challenged bit.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Rahn wasn't fully documented until today (you may remember because you added the missing information) after I removed the info above, and there is a list of references (of which Rahn is one). We're lucky the authors weren't "Smith". Hyacinth (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm only surprised you didn't remove that other reference to Rahn, along with the ones given here. Perhaps I'm going blind, but I don't see any list of references in this article, unless I go back in the edit history as far as May 2009, just before some editor changed the referencing style you established when you created the article. Currently, there is a section titled "References" which is not in list format, but rather consists of a series of footnotes. It is no wonder that you are having difficulty discovering whether inline citations in nonconforming formats are included or not.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Please show me where I am or was having difficulty. If you are having difficulty yourself, perhaps you are familiar with Ctrl+F/⌘ Cmd+F (Windows/Mac), described as "Go to find" at Table of keyboard shortcuts#Text editing. Hyacinth (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You appear not to recognise the inline references "(Warburton 1988, 148; Cohn 1992, 149)" and "Rahn 1980, 140". Possibly this is because they are in a nonconforming reference format, and there is no list of references with corresponding full bibliographical entries. When I do the usual electronic search (as you suggest), I find the search-string "references" crops up exactly three times: first in the TOC, second in the corresponding header over the footnotes section, and finally in the phrase "My preferences" in the navigation line at the top of the page. No alphabetical list of references is found under that rubric, nor under any other that I can see ("Sources", "Bibliography", "Works cited", etc.). Of course, I am not having any difficulty recognising these inline references, since I am familiar with the format being used. Either they were put in place when your original choice of parenthtical referencing was still current, or the passage was cut and pasted from another Wikipedia article where that style is used—in either case without the editor remembering to supply the necessary list of references. All clear now?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If your link (May 2009) is accurate "Warburton", "Cohn", & "Rahn" where clearly not put in place when parenthetical referencing was still used. Thus, as you say, the editor did not provide the references. Hyacinth (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, good. We've now established this fact. Have these incomplete citations ever been tagged with a {{Full}} template, or similar thing, to request the missing information from the editor who carelessly inserted this material? If not, what is your rationale for removing the partially cited claims, rather than asking for better information about the references?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ian Ring website spam link and WP:OR?

I note from a recent complaint to WP:ANI that User:24.246.26.168 has been spamming innumerable links to the ianring.com website which has now been blacklisted. I also note that this article contains 'new theories' cited to that website, but not supported by any other WP:RS. Will editors experienced in this topic please assess the value of retaining the content which currently states: "For many years it was accepted that there were only five instances in which the two algorithms differ[13] . However in 2017, music theorist Ian Ring discovered that there is a sixth set class where Forte and Rahn's algorithms arrive at different prime forms.[14]. Ian Ring also established a much simpler algorithm for computing the prime form of a set[14], which produces the same results as the more complicated algorithm previously published by John Rahn.". If there aren't independent supporting references it would seem appropriate to delete this promotional WP:OR content, per WP:FORUM. Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)