Talk:C (musical note)

philosophical pitch?

there's one pitch in which middle C is 256Hz (philosophical pitch? I can't remember the name). has the nice advantage of all C's being powers of 2! -- Tarquin

It is indeed called philosophical pitch (or sometimes "scientific pitch") and was reasonably popular for a while. It's very handy mathematically speaking if the only notes you're going to use are C's - otherwise the nasty twelfth-roots of equal temperament come along and make all the other pitches things like D=287.350284Hz ;-)

I'm going to write about different pitch standards at pitch (music) one day, it's an interesting subject, I think. I'll spruce this page up a bit as well. --Camembert

Middle C is called either C3 or C4

There is much confusion because Middle C is inconsistently labeled both C3 and C4.

Just intonation Middle C

If we start from the A below middle C, we would be starting from A 220. A pure minor third from the overtone series is a 5/4 ratio. This would give us a Middle C at 264Hz.

Actually, a minor third is 6:5. 5:4 is a major third. Must be a typo, since 264 is still the right answer.—Wahoofive (talk) 22:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Middle of the keyboard

Is it really in the middle of the keyboard?? The 52-white-key keyboard has E and F as the 26th and 27th white keys. Georgia guy 15:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It is the C that is closest to the middle of the keyboard. --Alexs letterbox 09:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Near the middle. SpellcheckW7 (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Spurious accuracy

261.625565Hz seems as impressive as it is unlikely...

Assuming one could even resolve a one cent deviation in the note, 261.474Hz and 261.777Hz would be the new frequencies, so quoting more than 4 sig figs seems questionable.

Picture

The picture with the label pointing to middle C on a keyboard seems fairly useless. It is zoomed in so closely to the keys that there is no absolute reference to where those keys really are. It could be on the bottom of they keyboard for all we know. I'd say replace it but the diagram at the bottom seems sufficient, so the photo should probably be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.28.136.34 (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Okay I have removed it, your idea seems right. Arjun 19:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vocal Parts

Middle C is neither near the top of the male vocal range nor is it near the bottom of the female vocal range. The Tenor range goes nearly an octave higher, and the Alto range goes at least a fifth lower. I think it is more accurate and precise to say near the top of the Bass vocal range, and near the bottom of the Soprano vocal range. I'll change it accordingly if no one objects. 129.170.246.173 23:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger of C articles

The articles on Soprano C and Tenor C seem redundent in light of the larger article C (musical note). I think those pages should be merged into this one.Nrswanson (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be much better to merge the two back into high C: there is about the right amount of material for an article that bears on singing. It would be sad if information that belongs in pitch (music), scale, key color and note were instead scattered among C (musical note), C sharp, D flat... (Keep in mind that there are also articles on C major, D-flat major...) Sparafucil (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am aware that there are pages on the whole diatonic chart (the scale pages), and I don't think those pages belong under pitch (music). Pages on individual musical notes could possibly be incorporated under pitch (music) but that is a whole different discussion that really should be had on that page. For now, I am content just getting all of the pages related to the musical note C onto one page.Nrswanson (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The do di petto has gotten lost in the merge; are you meaning to eventually move it to high C? Sparafucil (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

C4 etc.

Some self-appointed, non-keyboard specialist has taken it upon himself to remove recent references to C4 which do not suit his tastes. He states that those recent, keyboard-specific comments have nothing to do with determining the proper scientific notation for middle C. I do not argue that point. However, I *do* argue that:

A) this Wiki article is not solely for determining 'proper scientific notation'; and
B) owners of certain keyboard instruments WILL be confused if they assume that all instruments assume C4 as middle C.

Keyboard users under B) have a right to consult a central source and confirm that all specs are not the same. Wiki should be one of those sources.

The fact remains that C3 and C4 have been confused in the past due to inconsistencies among keyboard manufacturers; allusion has already been made in the history of this very article. It is my belief that the aforementioned vocal education major, operatic singer and Master of Divinity is not qualified to mask this detail.

- A thirty-two-year keyboard specialist
142.167.119.182 (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't appriciate your personal attack on me which is against the very nature of the wikipedia community. I particularly don't appriciate it from an anonymous IP address. I furthermore don't understand your insulting behavior as I have been nothing but courteous. If your insulting behavior continues I will report you to wikipedia administrators and have your IP address blocked. Furthermore, I do think some respect should be given for my education. I do have a Bachelors in Music Education and I do work professionally as a musician. I am also a pianist of 21 years thank you very much and a bassoon, cello, clarinet, and saxophone player. I am also working on a MA in Vocal Performance/Pedagogy right now. I finished my M Div. last year, but I am now pursuing a performance career. That aside, I reverted your edit as the information presented is in direct contrast to everything I have ever read or been taught about scientific pitch notation. Designations like C3, C4, or D10 etc. are based solely on pitch frequencies and therefore do not alter in the manner that you suggested from instrument to instrument. Furthermore, your claims cited no references and sense they are totally unvalidated I felt justified in removing the information. They also smell of original research and frankly I think Grove is a lot more reliable source on pitch notation than you.Nrswanson (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I happen to have documentation for the Yamaha model mentioned. Please see http://www.phifamily.com/totomisc/p85_quickref.pdf (a homemade scan) for what I believe to be evidence of the confusion our anonymous user seeks to demonstrate.

Nrswanson, you appear to have quite a lot of academic and professional experience. However, if I may be so bold as to point out politely, experience does not take the place of mere observation. First, you claim to have been "nothing but courteous." However, I can see how Anonymous would disagree with that assertion. In response to his original addition, you flatly reverted it and responded "completely false statement," without acknowledging any possibility that he was, in fact, stating a truth. Furthermore, I see nowhere that Anonymous wished to contradict the findings of Grove or even yourself; it seems to me that he only sought to supplement some conventional nomenclature with some detailed personal remarks - based, as it turns out, on widely published material - that could be of some legitimate value if shared or discussed.

Thirdly, although I agree that personal attacks are against the nature of the Wikipedia community, I can still see how you unwittingly set yourself up to look hypocritical in the eyes of Anonymous. Do you still deny the information in the PDF, or claim "original research"? Do you deny your repeated spelling errors ("appriciate")? Clearly, you are neither perfect nor omniscient. I think he is no more guilty of undue emotional response than you are.

It should be clear whose side I am taking. Be sure to quote complete information verbatim in your complaints to Wiki admins. Hopefully your next Wiki contributions will be taken at proper value, rather than ironically.

Totophi (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Totophi (or anonymous?), I am sorry if my reaction was snippy but can you blame me? I didn't intend to offend with my original reversion which was merely an attempt to prevent what I viewed at the time as an attempt of vandalism. Obviously I was in error there, but I certainly did not attack that individual personally, merely the information. And I never claimed perfection. (I am a notriously bad typer which is why I almost always make my edits in microsoft word before I put them on here. lol) Anyways, I only stood behind the available cited evidence. Moving on to problems with current evidence... the keyboard specs presented merely show that a keyboard may transpose pitches to different physical placements on the keyboard but do not in anyway redefine the definition of "C4" (or "middle C" for that matter). The previous edits make it sound like the actual pitch frequency was changed for C4 which is, even with the above documentation, inaccurate. For the most part, I stand by the original version of the article. I could see adding a note that electronic keyboards may move the placement of standard pitches to other physical locations on the keyboard but that seems somewhat off topic for the article. Furthermore, I am not sure music pedagogists/ scholars of music theory would agree with a redefining of "middle C". I am of course willing to concede if available data confirms such a concept. Nrswanson (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A further note. This article points out that middle C is called such because it is notationally in between the bass and treble clefs. This is most apparent when reading music written for keyboard instruments as you are reading both clefs. Hence why "middle C" would stay the same regardless of where the physical location of C4 was on a keyboard instrument. In other words, "middle C" is really a music theory/ notation term not a "keyboard term". C4 will always be "middle C" because of where it lies in written music and regardless of where it is physically located on the keyboard. This is essentially my arguement against the edits. I hope this makes sense to you. Nrswanson (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nrswanson, after reexamining the documentation, I still believe you are mistaken in your interpretation of the P-85 quick reference chart. Yes, most modern digital keyboard instruments may transpose up by semitones or by octaves, but the octave numbers represent the default settings for this Yamaha keyboard as it comes out of the box. And no, my instrument was not transposed - middle C sounded exactly at middle C. Imagine my frustration when I tried to set a specific metronome speed, using keypresses marked in the chart. Try as I might, I simply could not adjust the metronome speed using the keys I knew to be in the C3 octave (namely, those just below middle C). I even considered calling up the local keyboard sales rep who sold me this instrument, or even angrily lambasting Yamaha for selling me a lemon... And then it hit me: Yamaha's "C3" is simply their interpretation of what everyone else calls "C4"! After this realization, the whole rest of the chart made sense.

NATURALLY, music pedagogues would not agree to a redefinition of middle C. I sure don't. But as far as I can tell, Yamaha have gone ahead and done just that! Why this manufacturer, which such a global reputation for high-quality music instruments and motorized devices, would deliberately go against the grain in such a manner, is completely beyond me. But not to address this serious issue is unjust, and not only because it allows further confusion. Besides, where else on Wiki would you put it?

FYI, it seems this is not the first time that Yamaha have gone contrary to traditions: in the world of electronic keyboards, "voices" is usually the term used to define the number of simultaneous keys that may be held before notes begin to drop out. Acoustic pianos have infinite polyphony; most digital keyboards have 32 or 64 voices, and the top-end models have 128 voices - sometimes up to 256 voices for certain soft-synths running on outboard computers. But Yamaha uses "voices" to define different types of sounds emulated in their keyboards, e.g. piano, electric piano, strings, organ, vibraphone and flute represent six voices on a hypothetical Yamaha keyboard.

I wholeheartedly agree that the ability to transpose digital keyboards by semitone or by octave would be off-topic for this Wiki article, but that is not the issue as I see it. Furthermore, given the inextricable, historical link between pianos and the study of music theory (given that in many cases, the piano keyboard gives the clearest visual/instrumental representation of relative pitches corresponding to the grand staff), it might be considered... hmmm... "a remarkable lack of empathy" to dissociate the two as you have suggested.

Let's try to reach some common ground here. I don't have a Kurzweil or Roland instrument available for study, so I can't dig any deeper into Anonymous' claims. However, I will try to contact Yamaha and see whether this quick reference chart (and by association, the whole darn manual) is, in fact, printed exactly according to intent. If Yamaha acknowledge a typo, this whole discussion evaporates. If on the other hand they confirm their intent, I will ask them to provide an official statement of some kind which would be suitable for inclusion here. Should that transpire, I would be honored if you, Nrswanson, typed up the code to incorporate said statement into the Wiki article on Middle C.

Totophi (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Nrswanson, it sounds like you're slinging frogs while Totophi is slinging flies.

Not a member of the Flat Earth Society.

142.167.126.59 (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously neither of you (or the same person?) are grasping the finer points of music theory and once again resorting to insulting remarks. It doesn't matter how the keyboard is constructed (default settings or otherwise), all of that information is irrelevent. No matter what keyboard an individual uses, they are still going to read music using the grand staff. Middle C is called such because of its position within musical notation on the grandstaff. Any other interpretation is frankly false and contrary to the following resources:

• 1. The Harvard Dictionary of Music
• 2. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians
• 3. Berklee Music Theory Book 1
• 4. Music in Theory and Practice Vol 1 by Bruce Benward and Marilyn Saker

I am sure I could find dozens and dozens of more sources that explain Middle C in this way. I am sorry but no matter how many keyboard specs you come up with it doesn't change music theory terminology and principles. Also, in regards to Yamaha's use of calling Middle C "C3" (which I saw no evidence of on the specs you showed since they don't even mention "Middle C" but lets assume its true), it is very likely that they are not using standard "scientific pitch notation" but their own system, which keyboard manufacturers have been known to do from time to time. In which case, that data would not be easily translatable into this article which is based around scientific pitch notation. My suspicion is that if they are refering to C3 as Middle C they are not using scientific pitch notation. However, if this is not the case, then I would say Yamaha is in error as evidenced by the plethera of evidence against such uses of the term Middle C. They are after all only a company and are not infallible. They are also not a more authoratative source, and therefore inferior to, those listed above. Yamaha can't re-define terminology just because it wants to. However, this is all assuming that Yamaha is in fact changing the definition of Middle C which I have yet to see any evidence of. As of now, the specs merely show a transposition of pitches to different phyical locations on the keyboard in their default setings, which is cool but hardly re-defines Middle C as you would still be reading off of the Grand Staff on such an instrument. I think it highly more likely that Yamaha is not and has not changed the use of the term Middle C at all, and that you (not Yamaha) are just reinterpreting the term because they moved the pitches to different locations on the keyboard. This is once again original research.Nrswanson (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A side note. I really want to emphasize the fact that I am not trying to be dismissive towards either of you (or one of you?) and just because I disagree doesn't mean I am insulting you or wanting to appear condescending. I hope you will extend to me the same respect.Nrswanson (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A comment: "Designations like C3, C4, or D10 etc. are based solely on pitch frequencies and therefore do not alter... from instrument to instrument." Of course this is only true if one assumes a single convention applies to these names. It seems to me that one cannot unambiguously use C3, C4, etc... without specifying either Scientific pitch notation or another system. Surely none of this has anything to do with redefining middle C? Sparafucil (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly Sparafucil. This is what they are arguing for " C4 or Yamaha (e.g. the recent P-85) is clearly the octave above middle C, otherwise known as C3" while still defining these terms within scientific pitch notation. They are trying to pitch middle C in a different octave rather than in its true position. That was my whole point for the original reversion. The article states clearly that it is using scientific pitch notation and the information added does not conform to that system. SPN is the most widely used system internationally and other systems are only used in small pockets of the music world/auditory studies. To include other forms of pitch notation in my opinion would create an article almost impossible to understand by a non-musician as it would require multiple definitions to every aspect of this article. Since SPN is used most of the time, it seems to be the most logical choice for the article. (Also, middle C is always at 261.626 hertz in all systems of pitch notation. These guys are trying to say middle C can be at other octave frequencies) But leaving SPN aside, there is an even more fundamental problem with the statement and that is the assumption that middle C is moveable (i.e. changes pitch frequency) on keyboards with different default pitch settings. Basically, anon IP and company are trying to argue that middle C is always the C note that is closest to the center of the keyboard (which would be true in a standard keyboard) regardless of different default pitch settings. So when a keyboards default pitch setting is altered than the actual pitch of "middle C" is altered with it sense the central C key has a different pitch. This is incorrect as a musician will still be playing the notes in the same octaves based on the sheet music/composer's intent. They still read off of the grand staff which once again is the basis for the term "Middle C". The hands may be at a different physical location on the keyboard but the notes and the sheetmusic are the same. Therefore, on a keyboard like the P-85, "middle C" (which is still C4) is no longer located at the center of the keyboard. So basically the P-85 (and other keyboards that have different default pitch settings) alter the phyical location of the key that produces middle C to a place other than the center of the keyboard. This has no bearing on the definition of middle C nor alters the already present definition of this article at all, as you would still call whatever key plays C4 (261.626 hertz )middle C, regardless of where it is physically located on the keyboard. Nrswanson (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Obviously neither of you (or the same person?) are grasping the finer points of music theory and once again resorting to insulting remarks."

My respect for you and your accomplishments has come to an end. Do you realize how deluded your own statement is? The issue of contention does NOT concern finer points of music theory! In addition, you pompously accuse me of insults where I have stated none. You, on the other hand, are revealing more and more the fine talent of talking a lot while saying little. Do you still claim to uphold the values on which Wikipedia is based? Give it up, you miserable hypocrite. Oh, and that's not an insult, by the way.

"Any other interpretation is frankly false and contrary to the following resources:

* 1. The Harvard Dictionary of Music

* 2. The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians

* 3. Berklee Music Theory Book 1

* 4. Music in Theory and Practice Vol 1 by Bruce Benward and Marilyn Saker"

That's enough. It's like arguing with my Aspie kid. As you have clearly lost any capacity for rational thought and discourse you may have had before, I challenge you to bring any two PhD professors of music theory in the whole state of Oklahoma - or better yet, any two authors from any of these books you mention - to weigh in on this topic. They will doubtlessly make very clear what is worth printing on Wikipedia. And let me make it crystal-clear that it is not the fact of being opposed that compels me to type, but the repeated high volumes of contradictory (and ironically self-incriminating) hot air that you spew, making it hard to separate diatribe from raw facts. Jimmy Swaggart would be proud.

So basically the P-85 (and other keyboards that have different default pitch settings) alter the phyical [sic] location of the key that produces middle C to a place other than the center of the keyboard.

Sigh. The P-85 does not have different default pitch settings. Its middle C is not anywhere but the center of the keyboard. The whole issue is simply about Yamaha taking liberties with the naming of middle C as C3 versus C4.

A side note. I really want to emphasize the fact that I am not trying to be dismissive towards either of you (or one of you?) and just because I disagree doesn't mean I am insulting you or wanting to appear condescending. I hope you will extend to me the same respect.

Two words: Epic Fail.

Totophi (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Nrswanson, I obwerve that there are at least two arguments ongoing here - the topic of Wiki's No Original Research and the interpretation of Yamaha's manual instructions. After all this mess, in my mind, the only kind of ground you might have to stand on is the technicality of the NOR clause. As you may have noticed, I have refrained from reverting your Undo's to Anonymous' work, partly for this reason. But the confusion caused by this situation will not subside by any of your efforts, and I intend to anything necessary to see that the problem is either brought to light or resolved. This may involve calling in Third-Party Editors into this article, or starting completely new articles.

And another thing: I stand by everything I type on Wikipedia, as though every word could be preserved as possible long-term judgement. It's not practical to assume that as reality, but it certainly makes me weigh my words. Are you as committed to your own statements?

Totophi (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok Totophi. Lets examine the evidence

• 1. Anonymous IP (AIP) makes the following addition to C (musical note): "It should also be noted that even among renowned manufacturers of 88-note digital keyboard instruments, "C4" is not necessarily the same key across the board. For instance, C4 does indeed refer to middle C for Kurzweil and Roland, whereas C4 for Yamaha (e.g. the recent P-85) is clearly the octave above middle C, otherwise known as C3." (Note: this addition was given in an article based solely on scientific pitch notation as stated at the top of the article. Therefore, the above addition would be asssumed to be within the SIN system by readers.)
• 2. Nrswanson notes that this article clearly states that the page is based on scientific pitch notation which always designates middle C as C4 at 261.626 hertz which the above statement denies. Truly believing the information added by AIP is false he reverts the changes made by AIP with the following statement made in good faith: "reverting. completely false statement. the piano has nothing to do with determining scientific pitch notation." This statement does not in anyway attack "AIP" personally but merely is a statement of fact about why nrswanson reverted the article.
• 3. AIP reverts the article back to the version he created with the following statement: "There is absolutely NOTHING untruthful in this statement! Rather, it serves to clarify different, legitimate uses of 'C4' which may or may not confuse musician." AIP has chosen not to discuss the topic or address nrswanson's concerns on the talk page.
• 4. Nrswanson realizes that AIP has still failed to notice that the entire article is based on scientific pitch notation and reverts the article. The information counters the graph at the bottom of the article and therefore makes it appear as if middle C can be at different frequencies which is again against SIN and in fact all other forms of pitch notation as middle C will always be at 261.626 hertz. The statement is therefore either false (likely) and/or original research.
• 5. Rather than discussing the facts/issue at hand, AIP launches into an unprovoked attack on nrswanson personally. This attack involves information that AIP took from nrswanson's user page showing that AIP put calculated forethought into his actions. He attacks nrswanson's background and education and basically infers that he is a moron. This is a deliberate attempt at character assasination. However, AIP makes two valid arguements: "A) this Wiki article is not solely for determining 'proper scientific notation'"; and B) owners of certain keyboard instruments WILL be confused if they assume that all instruments assume C4 as middle C."
• 6. Nrswanson is shocked and confused at the unprovoked direct attack upon himself. He responds somewhat emotionally but notice how he refrains from making any insulting remarks/ personal attacks against AIP. He merely complains about AIP's inappropriate behavior and informs him of the consequences if such behavior continues. He goes on to defend his experience/education. Nrswanson tries to defend his position but looking back on it now he could have been a little more clear and have more specifically addressed AIP's two issues. Basically nrswanson is asserting that the article is only using SIN and that the wording that AIP used reads like he is claiming that C3 could be middle C in SIN. The article edits AIP made read this way because no mention of the use of a different pitch notation system is ever given. (Note:this article starts out by saying the data in the article is based in SIN. The article could adapt other systems but then a more thorough explanation of every aspect of this article would be required, which probably would confuse a non-musician. Also why only those two systems when there are at least four different pitch notation systems. However, SIN is the most prevelant.)
• 7. Totophi takes over defending AIP's position with some evidence of keyboard specs. He also points out that nrswanson is fallible which is perfectly true. However, he goes onto make attacks on nrswanson saying the following: "Although I agree that personal attacks are against the nature of the Wikipedia community, I can still see how you unwittingly set yourself up to look hypocritical in the eyes of Anonymous. Do you still deny the information in the PDF, or claim "original research"? Do you deny your repeated spelling errors ("appriciate")? Clearly, you are neither perfect nor omniscient. I think he is no more guilty of undue emotional response than you are." This statement reads like something AIP would say. It first accuses nrswanson of hipocracy when the evidence clearly shows that nrswanson has not made any insulting remarks/ personal attacks. The likely person who wouldn't notice that is AIP who is upset that someone has the audacity to have another opinion. Second, it goes onto attack nrswanson using information that was not earlier available to him. Third, it uses relatively unimportant errors like spelling mistakes on a talk page to try to discredit nrswanson. Finally, Totophi points out the obvious that nrswanson is not perfect or omniscient, two claims nrswanson has never made. All of these actions make it appear as if Totophi is "AIP" and is therefore engaged in unethical sock puppetry.
• 8. Nrswanson responds with explaining that he never attended any offence and is somewhat puzzled by the apparent hostile response by Totophi. He looks at Totophi's edit history and AIP's edit history noting how short and similar both of them are. This makes him suspect sock puppetry, which he hints at. He also responds to the evidence that Totophi has presented noting that it really has nothing to do with middle C and its definition. Once again nrswanson is courteous and does not attack AIP/Totophi.
• 9. Totophi goes into a technical arguement which fails to address nrswanson's concerns regarding consistancy with SIN, and even seems to argue that middle C can in fact be pitched at different frequencies. He even asserts the possibility that a company, Yamaha, has the authority to alter the definition of middle C by putting it at a place other than inbetween the bass clef and treble clef on the grand staff and therefore a different frequency than 261.626 hertz. This arguement is contrary to all pitch notation systems as middle C is always 261.626 hertz regardless of what representational symbol you use for middle C.
• 10. AIP/(possibly Totophi in sockpuppet form) insults nrswanson by accusing him of having the mentality of the Flat Earth Society.
• 11. Nrswanson once again points out that insulting behavior/ personal attacks is unacceptable. He goes onto explains why such a redefining of middle C would be contrary to the music theory basis behind middle C (namely middle C's position inbetween the bass cleff and treble cleff on the grand staff which is the central definition of middle C). He also points out that Totophi may be interpreting the data in a way that Yamaha never intended and that although different default pitch settings have been used, they have not redefined middle C. He further points out to Totophi, that Yamaha may not be using SIN, in which case the data represented there really is not easily applicable to the C (musical note) article which is based only in SIN for the purposes of clarity. Notice that nrswanson has still made zero personal attacks/insulting remarks to AIP/Totophi.
• 12. Sparafucil joins the conversation and rationally points out that the issue here is over the use of pitch notation, pointing out that one can't ambiguously throw around these terms. A perfectly reasonable and true assessment.
• 13. Nrswanson points out to Sparafucil that he is correct, and that this article uses only SIN (which is clearly stated in the article). However, the edits originally made by AIP seem to contradict this system by claiming another use of the term middle C within the SIN notation system (sense his edits never specified a change in pitch notation system). This redefining leads to problems which nrswanson clearly lays out.
• 14. Totophi attacks nrswanson for accusing him of insults which he never made citing the following statement made by nrswanson, "Obviously neither of you (or the same person?) are grasping the finer points of music theory and once again resorting to insulting remarks." Totophi failed to notice that AIP insulted nrswanson just prior to that comment, and that nrswanson's comment was addressed primarily to AIP. (see point 10) Regaurdless, Totophi has insulted nrswanson previously (point 7) and may very likely be AIP. Sockpuppetry becomes increasingly more likely with AIP's proceeding comments reflecting the style of AIP's personal attacks such as linking to other articles and insinuating that someone with a religous background is somehow intellectually inferior. He also fails to address any of nrswanson's concerns at all.
• 15. Totophi concludes his arguements with the following, "And another thing: I stand by everything I type on Wikipedia, as though every word could be preserved as possible long-term judgement. It's not practical to assume that as reality, but it certainly makes me weigh my words. Are you as committed to your own statements?"
• 16. nrswanson responds with the above recap.

Concluding remarks: I stand by everything I've said. I have been nothing but rational in my arguements and I have never resorted to name calling, insulting remarks, or any other kind of personal attack as defined by wikipedia guidelines. I am afraid you can not say the same thing about yourself. I have reported you at both Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Totophi‎.Nrswanson (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap, you guys. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill! Here are my two cents, being experienced with music theory and notation:

The term "Middle C" has always been defined in terms of music theory and notation, as Nrswanson stated, which means it's not defined with respect to any particular musical instrument. Standard musical notation has always placed Middle C in between the bass and treble clefs - the same note is one bar above the top main bar of the bass clef and one bar below the bottom main bar of the treble clef. The note's physical position on any instrument is immaterial to this notation.

The confusion probably arises from digital notation, which is not tied to traditional "on paper" notation. In my experience, terms such as C3/C4 did not come into use until digital systems (including and most notably MIDI) started to standardize on a naming system. You'll note that the above-mentioned keyboards are MIDI-capable. Since MIDI is flexible and the keyboards themselves have the ability to transpose notes, change entire octave bands, etc. (and of course, not all keyboards have 88 keys and thus only have a subset of the full recognized range available), it's easy to see how the term "Middle C" can be misconstrued to mean a particular position on a keyboard.

However, if you talk to any teacher or professor about music theory, they will universally refer to Middle C as a particular note in musical notation, which corresponds to a specific frequency when measured scientifically. It is up to the instruments to reproduce that note, regardless of how they do it or which physical key produces that note. (If an 88-key keyboard produces the Middle C note on a key that doesn't match the Middle-C key on a properly tuned piano, it is properly considered "out of tune" or "out of standard", regardless of what the keyboard's manual says.)

Now, my assessment of the above discussion: You both are getting rather heated up about this, and seem to be taking your roles as "experts" in your respective areas a little too seriously. Having reviewed the discussion and some of the recent edits to the article, I'd say that evidence leans more toward Nrswanson's side of the debate - the issue is not about how Middle C is implemented on a keyboard, but what Middle C is in terms of musical notation and sound frequency. Additionally, Nrswanson has produced several reliable sources that back up his side of the argument, and considering that the other side of the argument appears to be about a particular keyboard, the keyboard's manual serves as a primary source and therefore does not hold as much weight as Nrswanson's secondary sources.

In any event, you all need to step back (particularly the anonymous IP and Totophi) and stop attacking each other. This is not a matter of "I'm better/more experienced/more qualified than you" - it's a matter of understanding the subject, and I think the argument is both (a) a bit off-base, given the subject of the article, and (b) getting out of hand. Step back, cool off, and start working constructively. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you KieferSkunk. I am going to give this whole conversation a rest for a while.Nrswanson (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

KierferSkunk, I thank you as well for your welcome input. By the way, I have received a reply from the Digital Music Production Team of Yamaha, who are responsible for technical support on their digital keyboard instruments. While waiting for consent to use their verbatim reply in this discussion, I will state that the message does mention MIDI implementations in much the vein you suggested, and therefore starts to bring new clarity to the situation. However, KieferSkunk, it only helps the question of where Yamaha's C4 is (the main crux of the confusion as I see it), and not where Middle C is (always the fourth C from the bottom of an 88-note keyboard). It sure looks as though wires are getting crossed; 'twould be a shame for so much debate to have occurred over a misunderstanding of the issue.

Nrswanson, too bad you decided to cool off after you wrote your tirade... but before I got to read it. It may surprise you to know that I am completely fine with your accusations and reporting of perceived Wikipedia violations. The ostensible "neutrality" and exhaustive detail of your analysis will reveal enough on their own to any admins who care to look closely enough. Wiki's "Sockpuppetry: Notes for the Suspect" say in Point 2: If the accuser has listed evidence against you, you should respond to the allegations, unless they are obviously frivolous. Guess what?

Totophi (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Trying to find a solution

Thanks for the try KieferSkunk but there were some problems there as well. Scientific pitch notation is the specific name of only one specific form of pitch notation. To my knowledge there are three other forms of pitch notation in use, all of them "scientific" but using different notation to represent the same pitch frequencies. Scientific pitch notation is the one most frequently used which is why it was adopted for this article. I am afraid I am not as familiar with the history/development of the other systems, but to call them non-scientific would be a misnomer as they do use the same pitch frequencies and are rooted in auditory science. It's really just a different labeling system. In order to accurately present that information though, we would have to present charts like the SIN one with the different symbols for the various systems. Otherwise readers might get confused. The problem here though, is finding secondary sources as most of these other systems are used by individual companies in keyboard designs and not adopted within scientific acoustic research. Any ideas or suggestions?Nrswanson (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the problem is with my use of the term "non-scientifically", we can certainly substitute that with a similar phrase, such as "in other ways". However, you bring up a point that I think merits more work as well - the version before mine puts pretty much all its weight on just one system. If the other systems are scientifically valid, then I think we need to give them more equal emphasis as well - even if it's just mentioning in a general sense that "other systems exist, but are not in common use with respect to music theory", etc. I think the main argument in the discussion above, while poorly stated, is that the version you have up there does tend to ignore outright the fact that these other systems exist. My edit was an attempt to address that issue in a way that didn't overcorrect, but I wonder if we do in fact need to restructure the paragraph altogether.

I don't disagree that the "note-octave" system you're using for the basis of the article is the most commonly recognized. I just think that it reads right now as though to exclude all others, which probably isn't what we want to do. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To add on to my thought, if the other systems are not scientifically valid (but rather proprietary systems used by certain keyboard manufacturers), it still bears mentioning that these systems can and have caused confusion among people using the instruments. The fact that Middle C on a Yamaha keyboard may mean "the Nth C key on the keyboard" rather than "the key that generates the C4 note" would very easily confuse someone who doesn't fully understand the difference. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Good points and I have changed the intro. What do you think? Also these other systems don't alter "middle C". Whatever note on the keyboard that resonates at a frequency of 261.626 hertz is still middle C in these systems. They just might call that note C3 or C5 instead of C4. Basically they tend to displace the numbering system of SIN by an octave. Make sense?Nrswanson (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, yes. I've seen some cases where "Middle C" actually refers to a different note than the one accepted in notation, but I think those are pretty rare and non-standard, so we can likely ignore them per WP:N, unless there's some significant coverage of notable cases where this has caused problems. I'll review your latest draft later, tho - don't have time now, unfortunately. :/ — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help.Nrswanson (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Had a meeting get cancelled as soon as it started, so I have more time now after all. Looks pretty good - that extra sentence adequately mentions the presence of other systems such that people are aware of them. I think we could probably find a way to make it flow a little better, since you pretty much say "We're going to use this system", followed in the next paragraph by discussion about how people don't use the system. In addition, I think it might be bad form to say "For purposes of this article" - if we can phrase it more like "This is the most commonly used system", we can avoid self-referencing the article. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I am afraid my brain is fried at the moment so I will leave you to it for now.Nrswanson (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out this revision. Does that work better? Aside from re-mentioning "some manufacturers" in a general sense, it shouldn't significantly change the meaning, but IMO it does flow better now, and it doesn't self-reference the article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)