Disputatio:Tonus

Minor/major versus dur/moll

I would had though that in Latin one would use the term dur and moll (from durus and mollis) rather than minor and major? --BiT 01:10, 23 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

Much current musical terminology was worked out in Latin in the Middle Ages, and the text of this article is way off in certain particulars, which we must revisit someday. IacobusAmor 14:35, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Sound (sonus?), pitch (frequentia?), tone (tonus), note (nota)

These are technical terms, with definitions of a preciseness that people often ignore. Here's a simple, off-the-top-of-the-head distinction:

1. Sound = anything audible; not just a musical reference.

2. Pitch = any sound at a specific frequency (Hz) or (loosely) range of frequencies; not just a musical reference.

3. Tone = any pitch or range of pitches treated within a musical system as a musical unit.

4. Note = any tone that has duration in a piece of music; or its representation in writing.

The important point in #3 is that musical systems disregard (sometimes wide) variations in pitch: frequencies of 438, 439, 440, 440.01. 440.02, 441, and 444 Hz may all function as the same tone, even though they manifestly have different pitches. Someday we can elaborate on this, but right now I have to run. IacobusAmor 14:35, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Most of these are easy (as noted above)

1. Sound = sonus

2. Pitch = ?

3. Tone = Tonus

4. Note = Nota

except for pitch. Based on romance language pages, we could use altitudo. Alternatively, frequentia would do I think.--Rafaelgarcia 14:49, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

Infeliciter mihi non tam facilis esse videtur. Exempli gratia:

1. In Musica Enchiriadi (ex IXno saeculo) – ut equidem video - elementa musicalia („tones“) verbis „Ptongi“ vel „Soni“ nominantur, sed terminus „tonus“ ad intervallum secundae maioris („whole tone / whole step“, in differentia cum termino „semitonium“) referre videtur: „Sic canore vocis ptongi, qui latine dicuntur soni, origines sunt et totius musice continentia…“. 2. Michael Praetorius (Syntagma Musicum II, De Organographia, 1619) utitur terminum „tonos“ ad referre ad voces compositionis („voices“), et terminos „vox“ et „sonus“ simili modo: „welche Instrumenta alle Stimmen und Tonos imitiren, repraesentiren, und an Tag geben können: Welche aber nur etliche Stimmen von sich lauten lassen…“ („which instrumenta can imitate or represent all voices and tonos, and which only give some voices“), et postea: „Etliche aber sein polýtona, vielstimmig Multivoca/sona“ („some are polýtona, many-voiced, multivoca/sona“; hic „sonus“ occurrere videtur quam interpretatio latina verbi Graeci „tonos“). 3. Denique, „tonus“ ad tonos vel modos ecclesiasticos (dorium, phrygium etc.) referre potest, imprimis usque ad XVIImum saeculum (vide e. g. titulos nonnullarum canzonarum Ioannis Gabrieli)

Ea ratione hi termini „sonus“ et „tonus“ mihi maxime ambigui esse videntur, et ergo secundum opinionem meam paginae redirectionis „Sonus“ et „Tonus“ creandae fuerint, quae redirigant ad „Sonus (vel sonitus?) (physica)“ (= „sound“) et „Sonus (musica)“ (= „tone“) etc.. --2001:16B8:2459:800:81FA:557F:A7A2:5417 07:23, 18 Aprilis 2020 (UTC)

At the moment

At the moment, the first paragraph is a definition of pitch, with an imago that (by using a musical staff) is an illustration of tone, and the later part of the commentarium is a discussion of tone—so this article needs to be split into Tonus and Frequentia (or Sonus, if that's OK for 'pitch') and fixed. It's safe to say that most people, even those who should know better, use pitch, tone, and note in a confused, sometimes seemingly random, way; but that's no reason that an encyclopedia should do the same. IacobusAmor 14:42, 19 Aprilis 2008 (UTC)

A B C etcetera?

Gradus scalae e litteris abecedarii nominantur solum in linguis Germanicis. Linguae Romanicae systemate Guidonis utuntur, videlicet Latine UT RE MI FA SOL LA TI. Haec est forma recta Latina.Tergum violinae 16:19, 16 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)