This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the E-flat major article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The Key of E-flat Major: 3 flats ( used in music)--81.159.2.60 (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The Key of Heros, the Key of Love, the Key of Excellence.
E-flat major is a great key for the brass family. Three out of five of Mozart's horn concerto's are written in it. As well as Haydn's famous Trumpette concerto. This I believe is Beethoven's favorite key. His Eroica symphony is written in it, thus being apropriate to match its name Heroic. This key would be paralleled to the color purple desginating royalty and high rank. Many other works were written in E-flat major: Bruckner's fourth symphony, Strauss' Ein Heldenleben, Mozart's majestic symphony number 39, and many of the Johann Strauss' waltzes.
People who would fit in with the key of E-flat major:--(7) Napoléon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, King Louis XIV, Sun Tzo, Shogun Tokugawa Iesuya, Alexander the Great, Pope John Paul II.
Also, this key it associated with god, thus writtinf religious and gosple works in it. (e.g. Shubert's Mass in E-flat Major) --69.143.66.255 02:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Ryan Kotowski
Who moved all these and why? (e.g., E-flat major now redirects to E flat major). They didn't bother to look at the "what links here" either. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman 19:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Wahoofive revealed that Bach wrote a piece in E-flat with only 2 flats in the key signature. Why did he use only 2 flats?? Georgia guy 13:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
30-May-2007: In 2006/2007, Wikipedia images required both attributes "thumb|250px" to show a caption, as in:
[[Image:MyPhoto.jpg|thumb|250px|right| My picture.]]
By itself, size "250px" ignores the caption "My picture" (confusing many people), which is considered bad form in computer languages (should warn & be corrected rather than ignore). Just remember to include "thumb" (or "frame") for a caption in an image-link.
Image hints in 2007:
Overall, omitting "thumb" is the most common problem.
There are many formatting issues in the Wiki software (used worldwide), with a long list of problems to fix, but in the software world, many errors often persist, only to be upstaged by a totally radical new software version, rather than just fixing the irritating problems fast. Note that numerous software systems (not just Wiki) have frustrating issues for years. -Wikid77 16:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I see what you're getting at, and I *have* in fact seen inaccurate information in the "Music in this key" lists. (I've added a few items to these lists, and have corrected incorrect ones I've seen.)
Personally, I think for a musically knowledgeable person to look at a score is simply consulting a source, not doing original research to find out the key. As for the bit about "without specialist knowledge": that is hugely limiting in some fields where, by their very nature, some degree of specialist knowledge is needed to understand the subject matter - such as the ability to read music, recognize keys, and the like. It is almost trite to point out that a musical score is not comprehensible to a person who cannot read music - yet I cannot see how you can deny that it is the final source on that particular composition.
It would be nice if Wikipedia could have some system for checking the accuracy of information. But I can't quite shake off the feeling that it is rather restrictive to exclude information that can be easily verified by a knowledgeable person, yet may not be published anywhere that can be used as a reference. Keys of music are exactly this type of thing: except for the well-known classical works with abstract titles which often include the key in their title, the key something is in is almost never mentioned anywhere in print. And I would imagine that those who made the statement in print (and therefore created an acceptable reference) determined the key of the music in exactly the same way that you or I might: that is, by examining the score. There are very reliable ways of telling what the key of a piece is from the score, and yes, you can also take account of the possibility of E Dorian, etc. (Passing modulations, atonal passages in the middle, etc. make no difference: if the key at the end is the same as the key at the beginning, that defines the key of the piece.)
Expanding this idea further, is it acceptable under Wikipedia policy for someone to write an article on a topic they have special knowledge of, but where that knowledge is based on their own experience, or else on what they've read long ago, and can't remember the source of to quote as a reference? If this is not acceptable, then much useful knowledge may be made unacceptable to Wikipedia. Some information is actually very difficult to find in print or other acceptable sources, yet it may be common knowledge to people who are familiar with the subject. Yet you seem to be implying that this knowledge cannot be used in Wikipedia if references can't be found to each detail, chapter and verse. Is that right? (In that case, I might as well cancel my account here, since much of my knowledge on various topics is of this sort.)
I've been thinking a bit about this, and I have an idea that might be good to adopt, but it would mean quite a significant modification to the way Wikipedia is organized. I will mention it briefly here, although maybe there is another forum in Wikipedia where this might better be raised.
My idea is to have two tiers of Wikipedia article, or two tiers of sections within the same article. The first tier would maintain the strict standards about sourcing, etc. that are currently in force, and the second tier would admit information that cannot be referenced at present. With so many editors around who quite quickly change anything they find wrong or dubious, I would have thought this second tier of information would tend to be self-correcting over time: anything that was wrong would soon enough be removed or changed by other editors who knew the actual facts better. The two tiers of articles or sections could be marked in a way that was clear enough to see if you wanted to notice this, but unobtrusive enough to ignore if you wanted to - something like a differently-coloured screen background or a different size or typeface for the text, or a thin bar of colour in the margin.
Maybe there are drawbacks to this that I haven't thought of. I'm not seriously arguing the case for this right now, but just flying a kite to see if anyone thinks it's worth considering.
Is there somewhere on Wikipedia where this could be suitably raised for discussion? Is there even the ghost of a chance of this being adopted one day, and of it working reasonably well?
It seems to me it would be a good idea to be able to preserve the vast amount of knowledge which people may have on topics they've studied but which they may not be able to reference point by point. I for instance have an extensive knowledge of music theory, gained from teachers, books, and personal experience over decades, but I can rarely point to a specific reference for any fact, especially some of the more obscure ones - and the more obscure and difficult-to-reference ones are exactly the ones I would be most glad to be able to read about in Wikipedia. If a system could be organized within Wikipedia for admitting such knowledge, yet keeping some control over its accuracy, that would be very good.
Just an idea, anyway. M.J.E. (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it true that the key of E-flat is the most, or one of the most comfortable keys to sing in? --202.179.74.242 (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Why does this key sound so sleepy?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Tenor Tubas are called Euphoniums and are in Bb (and sometimes rarely in C). Bb and C horns are called Contrabass and Eb and F are called bass horns. I have yet to see an tuba part written in the key of E-flat, it might exist but it is not common. --Stardude82 (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Add these songs to the list if you can find sources for them. Leather and Lace-Stevie Nicks and Don Henley, Save the Best for Last-Vanessa Williams, Tonight, I Celebrate My Love-Peabo Bryson and Roberta Flack. Cbsteffen (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Cbsteffen Don't forget Let's Get It On by Marvyn Gaye and Ed Townsend.
Why did you include D-sharp minor? I thought E-flat minor is normally used. 47.20.0.160 (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
On a computer, the <score> (see source of page - it's the scale with the gray rectangle at the top of the screen) doesn't format correctly. If I unmaximize my window to a half screen the <score> is too long and appears under the infobox, creating a bunch of whitespace. https://imgur.com/a/TuvWlot
Not only that, the gray rectangle is not aligned with the E-flat major scale horizontally.
The top of the gray rectangle matches with the top of the treble clef (symbol at start) but the gray rectangle is not tall enough and only reaches halfway down the staff (5 lines). See picture link.
I don't know how the formatting works. AltoStev Talk 15:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect D-sharp major. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 31#D-sharp major until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)