Talk:Dotted note

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think there should be some mention of the use of dotted notes as used by Chopin in his Nocturne in F minor (Op. 55, No. 1). In the seventh measure, there is a rather unusual chord, in my opinion. It actually consists of two dotted notes with a detached quarter note above. I have not found any definition of this particular usage in any music theory or music definition book. This may not be Chopin's own notation, but rather that of Schirmer's Library of Musical Classics. I am not sure.

This chord seems to be played as a thirty-second note (B-flat), followed by a dotted thirty-second (E), followed by the quarter note (A-flat), ascending. The first two notes are actually played in the second beat, whereas the final A-flat is played in the third, where the chord is written. It is like an arpeggio with a pause before the last note in the run.

I apologize for my lack of proper music terminology. Hopefully my explanation is sufficient.

If anyone has a concrete definition for this, I think it (along with the source of the definition) would make a nice addition to the dotted note page.

Marc321 22:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It must be a weirdness of Schirmer's. My Henle edition has nothing like that. Rather, it has a stem-up quarter note on A flat, above a stem-down dotted quarter with B flat and E natural, with a wavy vertical line indicating to roll the chord.

P.S. We usually don't count partial measures at the beginning of a piece when numbering, so the feature you mention is in measure 7, not 8. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this the measure you mean? My Henle edition has only single dots rather than double dots in the lower voice of the top staff, but that's insignificant for this discussion. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for replying and for the picture. That is the measure I'm talking about. Thank you for correcting me on counting the measures. I was not sure about that when I posted.

The version in your book makes a lot more sense. I've uploaded a scan from my book just for comparison. Now that I've seen another perspective, I do not think this is important enough to be included in the main dotted note page. Interesting, nonetheless. Marc321 00:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formula

Rather a silly formula in the generalisation section. In the first place it contains two errors, hence cannot function. In the second, and maybe most important place, it doesn't tell you anything you need to know and will not be used by anyone.130.89.218.91 (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the formula with a correct one (took it from the dutch wiki). Of interest to music theorists and scholars too. Be aware that many aspects of music have mathematical aspects too. Pls keep the formula. regards, DTBone (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The formula still does not work. I did change the wording (and, incidentally, spelling) of the previous editor so the subsection actually makes sense. Please fix the actual math, though.

69.54.28.201 (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another less complicated formula that would work is . — Insanity Incarnate 21:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)