User talk:Vaux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Vaux, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 00:40, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Mensural notation

Thank you for your recent edits to Renaissance music. It would be great if we had an article on Mensural notation, because not only this page, but Time signature and Note value touch on it very superficially. If this is an area you know a lot about, it would be a valuable addition. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Mensural notation

I'm adding a sort of co-dependant system of links about the beginnings of such notation to the Medieval music page, also. Mensural notation is definitely one of the things I'm going to work on in the near future. Vaux 19:19. 3 Jun, 2005 (EDT)

[edit] Petrus de Cruce

Nice job on Petrus de Cruce! He's been on my to-do list for more than a year now. I'm looking forward to your mensural notation article. Was your area of speciality for your M.M. early music? Best, Antandrus (talk) 14:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the further wikification, Antandrus. I didn't actually get around to reading the bio style guide till later on last night. My master's thesis was actually about The Etude, but I've always been involved with early music since my favorite professors were. I've sung a lot of it, and studied it pretty extensively. ~~ 16:43, 4 Jun, 2005 (EDT)

[edit] Mensural notation article

Hi Vaux

I just came across your article on Mensural notation and some related ones. That's awesome stuff there, congrats! - Nevertheless, I'm thinking about developing that article further. I have the feeling it could do with a bit of restructuring, and possibly abridgments. The structure currently feels rather discursive, not very encyclopedia-like in parts, and some crucial information is hidden quite far down the text in sections where one might not expect it. And of course the whole article is already quite long.

Examples of what I'm thinking of:

  • The whole explanation of how note values are dependent on context (through imperfection/alteration etc.) is only begun in Section 4, "Franconian notation", and continued in 5.1. It might be nice to move it more towards the front, as it's really the heart of the matter of what distinguishes mensural notation from modern notation in the first place.
  • These sections are separated from the ligatures section in the beginning, by several sections dealing with clefs, accidentals, and musica ficta. It might be useful to re-group this so that everything dealing with rhythmic values (the stuff that's really specific to mensural notation) is in one place, and everything that deals with the pitch dimension (clefs, accidentals) etc. is in another.
  • The section on rests might go better with that on "regular notes".
  • Actually, some of the pitch-related elements might even be moved entirely elsewhere, especially the "musica ficta" stuff, which duplicates a separate (though currently shorter) article Musica ficta.

I'm posting this to your talk page because you seem to have been the only substantial author to this page so far. If you're interested in working on this with me a bit, we should probably take it to the article talk page. Let me know what you think. (BTW, my own knowledge of mensural notation is probably a bit rusty - I took my degree in musicology back in 1996, but then went on to do a PhD in a different field, linguistics.) -- Best, Lukas 13:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)