Talk:Hundred twenty-eighth note

Introduction

Surely a note this short would be highly unusual. Do we have any examples of music using it that we could list? Are there any shorter notes (besides trills, etc.)? Is it only used in slow tempo music? Rmhermen 13:30, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they're unusual, but not unknown. I guess they would be more common at slow tempi, but everything's relative. Shorter notes are occasionally used, but are even rarer. I don't have any examples to hand of them being used I can add to the article (maybe somebody else?) - if I happen across anything, I'll put it in. --Camembert

This page [1] provides the following:

"The shortest notated duration I know of appears in this page of Anthony Phillip Heinrich's Toccata Grande Cromatica from The Sylviad, Set 2, m. 16 (c. 1825). At the very end of the page--the end of the last measure on the lower staff of the bottom system--there are some 1024th and even two 2048th(!) notes. However, the context shows clearly that these notes have one beam more than intended, so they should really be 512th and 1024th notes, respectively. The passage--in 2/4, marked "Grave"--also contains many 256th notes. (How reasonable these durations are can be inferred from the fact that even at a tempo as slow as M.M. eighth = 40 (quarter = 20), a 1024th note would last about 1/85 sec.)"

82.24.189.88 19:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There is an Eb major scale and a chromatic scale in the first movement of Beethoven's Sonata Pathetique (Op. 13) that occur in 128 time. See [2]. UninvitedCompany 18:14, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

256th note

Gardner Read remarks: "The only example of this note-value [256th] known to the author is found in the 4 Movements for Piano and Orchestra by the Polish avant-gardist Boguslav Schäffer." Music Notation: A Manual of Modern Practice 2nd Edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc. (1969): 117. Jindřichův Smith (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap! I don't think there's much of a reason for notes that short... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.81.114 (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

---WELL I BELIEVE THAT THE PIANO IS NOT THE ONLY INSTRUMENT TO BE USED TO PERFORM THESE 256TH NOTES. I AM A DRUMMER AND I CAN PLAY 256TH NOTES AT A REASONABLY FAST TEMPO. WHAT DOES EVERYONE HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT?

Erm... well done? Wereon (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A 256th note is only as short as the general tempo requires, so your achievement says nothing and you surely don't know anything about music. --2.245.156.198 (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The closing paragraphs say this;

"The logical succession to a hundred twenty-eighth note would be a "two hundred fifty-sixth note," or a "demisemihemidemisemiquaver" in British/Classic terminology. However, these are exceptionally rare, if not non-existent, as no evidence exists to prove or disprove their existence. "

And then say this;

"Two hundred fifty-sixth notes and rests also exist, but they are rare and only exist in computer generated music"

So the are exceptionally rare...and they also exist. Logic fail, or am I reading this incorrectly? doktorb _words^deeds 14:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just hooey. Evidence to disprove their existence? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Beethoven almost uses 256th notes in his third piano concerto, using 15:8 128th notes. In some editions (e.g. Bärenreiter), 256th notes are actually used. Vivaldi unquestionably used 256th notes. See this link. Double sharp (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

(Thinking of creating Two hundred fifty-sixth note. There are enough examples – like the 128th – that make the 256th notable enough (Vivaldi! Mozart! Beethoven!)) Double sharp (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation please?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Beethoven: 3rd piano concerto, II, Bärenreiter edition (b.77); Mozart: Je suis lindor, Var. XII, NMA edition (b.10); and Vivaldi's RV 444. Double sharp (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

(Re)created 256th note (no plans to add smaller, except as redirects to the section there on small notes). Does it seem OK to you? Double sharp (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

bogus British terms

We have no peer reviewed authority that the terms quasihemidemisemiquaver and semihemidemisemiquaver are used (in British English or otherwise). Their absence from one of the best British dictionaries of music is good authority that they are not.

Borgmann 1967, the currently cited source for the British terms, is useless. It is a book of word puzzles. Borgmann is using words (including made-up words) for games, not giving evidence for their currency. Nor is his book peer reviewed. Borgmann does cite sources, but his sources disappoint.

He cites Percy A. Scholes The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music for semihemidemisemiquaver. This would be an authoritative source except that it apparently does not actually list the word. Perhaps it was there in 1967 (possibly following Mencken, below), but I could not find the term with a Book Search in either the 2004 Concise Oxford or the full, unabridged 2013 Oxford Dictionary of Music.

He cites H.L. Mencken The American Language for quasihemidemisemiquaver. This must be the fourth edition. Earlier editions did not have the word; Mencken originally wrote, "If, by any chance, an English musician should write a one-hundred-and-twenty-eighth note he probably wouldn't know what to call it." Mencken is not a first-rate authority and did not claim to be. In the preface, he wrote, "All [the book] pretends to do is to articulate some of those materials—to get some approach to order and coherence into them, and so pave the way for a better work by some more competent man. That work calls for the equipment of a first-rate philologist, which I am surely not."

Accordingly, I am removing the terms from the article.

—MetaEd (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Good. agreed! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Two years later, we still have no peer reviewed authority for semihemidemisemiquaver, such as the Oxford music dictionary or a reputable dictionary of the English language. But someone has added it again (minus the “British” claim), citing two authors who used the word. It is possible to locate several works in which this word appears, but this is original research. The word will belong here when a reputable dictionary can be cited as its authority. Until then, I am removing it.

If it is not clear why we rely on peer reviewed authority instead of original research, consider that the works cited are less than five years old. The authors might have relied on the poorly-researched earlier version of this very article …

—MetaEd (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There's plenty of use of semihemidemisemiquaver, there's no reason why it must be in a dictionary. See, for example, the The Cambridge Companion to Shostakovich [3], the Oxford Junior Companion to Music (1979) [4], and various academic articles [5] (from 1974 onwards). Warofdreams talk 21:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice list, many thanks, Warofdreams. To be scrupulously fair, a few of those academic articles in peer-reviewed journals have appeared since the original discussion here two years ago but most are older than that, which raises the question: Why was no-one (me included) able to find them back then?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There absolutely is good reason why it must be in a dictionary. Verifiability requires a reliable source that clearly and directly defends the claim in the article. None of the cited articles make a claim about the currency of semihemidemisemiquaver, so they do not verify the claim. These are not articles about musical vocabulary. They use it, but they do not pretend to be authorities. To put it another way, if these citations satisfy verifiability, so does the word puzzles citation that was removed two years ago.

The Wikipedia editor who added these citations is doing original research: providing his own evidence, not peer reviewed, that the word is current in the musical literature, ignoring the abundant counter-evidence. There are two types of counter-evidence.

1. As discussed two years ago, the absence of semihemidemisemiquaver from Oxford Dictionary of Music is positive, peer-reviewed evidence that the word is not generally used, and that the word actually used is 128th note.

2. The fact that all our literature searches have come up with nearly nothing adds to the evidence that the word is not generally used. The result was, what, 12 articles in the musical literature, if we include technical manuals and patent applications?

When a reliable authority surfaces that clearly and directly supports the claim in the article, then absolutely the word belongs, but not before.

MetaEd (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, so please point me to the relevant guideline that says only dictionaries or encyclopedias are reliable sources. I can't find this anywhere.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

A scholarly article that clearly and directly proves the claim is acceptable (the standard of WP:Verifiability). We haven't found anything of the kind in our literature searches. The works currently cited in the article are being used "to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources" — original research. MetaEd (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Are they? What claim not verified by the sources is being made?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Labeling the 128th note a semihemidemisemiquaver is a claim that it is a generally accepted term for 128th note. A dictionary contains peer reviewed claims about the currency of words, based on actual research. There is no such research described in the articles cited. They would seemingly be good sources for claims about orchestration, or the works of Shostakovich, but not about the currency of musical terms.

Would it be an acceptable compromise to add that semihemidemisemiquaver is not a generally accepted term, and cite reputable research results such as the Oxford Dictionary of Music and other unabridged dictionaries? MetaEd (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

First of all, dictionaries are not peer-reviewed publications. They do not solicit submissions from independent authors whose efforts are then scrutinised by recognised authorities in the field. Dictionaries and encyclopedias, along with textbooks, are defined on Wikipedia as "tertiary sources", which does not make them unacceptable, but they are regarded as less sound than secondary sources (which include, but are not restricted to peer-reviewed academic publications). Second, if you can find a passage in the Oxford Dictionary of Music stating categorically that semihemidemisemiquaver is not a generally accepted term, then, yes, you can use it. It is not a valid practice, however, to point to an absence of a word in a source to prove its nonexistence. If we were allowed to do that, then I could prove that Heitor Villa-Lobos is not a notable composer on grounds that he is never mentioned in Richard Taruskin's Oxford History of Western Music. Just out of curiosity, why is this minute detail of such enormous importance to you?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The dictionary argument is invalid. A dictionary can't include every word conforming to morphology. That's why you can't find entries like 95823 written out, but that doesn't mean the number is not a thing and has no meaning. --2.245.156.198 (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

128th note's Canadian name; semihemi... or quasihemi...??

When I first wanted to know the Canadian name for this note, I used a web site that I never bothered to memorize the URL of, but now I believe it is at:

https://sites.google.com/site/ninagilbert/home/british

(This was a long time ago, back in 1999 or so.)

At that time, it only had quasihemidemisemiquaver as this note's name. But Wikipedia is now saying that the initial semi- is the correct name. (The link itself is even saying "I'm not making this up" when talking about the term "quasihemidemisemiquaver".) Any ideas which term is older?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

melding to a single pitch

The article mentions that an 128th-note tremolo melds into a single pitch at ♩ = 80 (bpm), with 20 Hz (1200 bpm), but I can’t figure out where this comes from… ♩ = 80 means ♪ = 160, etc. so the 64th note has already 1280 bpm, so… citation, er formula needed. --mirabilos — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:1F15:10C:20A:E4FF:FE32:6598 (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The shortest note value practically

Why is the shortest note value practically considered the 64th note and not the 128th note since several pieces have 128th notes as well? Χιονάκι (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I would say it has to do with practicality. What would be the point of a note so short that you really would not hear it let alone be able to physically play it. --Nosehair2200 (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

American and British name

Why was it not mentioned in the article that the name Hundred twenty-eighth note is American, while the other two are British, as in the rest of the articles about note values? Χιονάκι (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)