Talk:Musical notation

This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Music theory Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Anthropology: Oral tradition This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

Archives

/Archive 1

The history section of the article is almost completely Euro-centric. Can someone expand this section with research from India ( Sama Veda 1700 BC) and China? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demystifiersf (talk • contribs) 19:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it isn't eurocentric enough. For instance there is no mention of crucial developments of sharp/flat signs, let alone of double sharps. And no mention of the development of equal temperament, one of the fundamentals of modern globe-wide music. If you hadn't noticed, cultural history has indeed been dominated in recent centuries by Europe and particularly the uk. That's just how it is, no need to hypothesise some bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.186.149 (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone knows why a subscript b is used for flat notation it would be greatly appreciated. I think it's funny that a subscript b is used because "B" a whole step higher than "A". I'm sure there was some kind of logic to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chevyfastback (talk • contribs) 05:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: in German they use the letter B to mean B flat, but H to mean B natural. In other countries, before the invention of accidental signs, they referred to "B rotundum" and "B quadratum" ("round" and "square"). A rounded B became the flat sign and a squared b became the natural sign. The sign isn't really subscripted; it just descends below the baseline, just like a lower-case "y". —Wahoofive (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we use a "b" is because as western music developed notation, the scales used only needed one accidental. There was a limited number of diatonic scales in use (see modes), and at first the only accidental needed was for B (see also Hexachord), most often as an alteration to the Lydian mode (our article Neume has a good description of how the notation worked for Gregorian chant, which might give you the appropriate background here). It was not until much later that it became necessary to have accidentals for other notes, and for this they borrowed the "soft b" from existing notation. Similarly the natural is the "hard b", which eventually got its right line extended to create its current form, and for a long time the same symbol was used for sharps as well (as the natural, originally applied only to B, meant to raise the pitch a semitone from where it had been as a flat). Eventually when people began to need more precise notation, the sharp became distinguished from the natural. So the short story is that it is a B because we only needed flat Bs when we came up with the idea of flats. - Rainwarrior 04:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest a need for a section to list and describe common (Italian etc) words used in sheet music? Alternatively a link to where these might be on Wikipedia? Examples could be 'piano', 'crescendo' etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.125.226 (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See List of musical terminology AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With a multisyllabic word, dashes are put in between the syllables. Also, when multiple notes are sung over one syllable, an underscore is extended from the end of the syllable to the last note. I think the image should be corrected - it looks amateurish.

If you need a source, check "Music Notation - Preparing Scores and Parts" by Matthew Nicholl and Rich Grudzinski. Also, if you are thinking, "it's a lead sheet, not the score to an opera" or something along those lines, look at any vocal tune in the Real Book or the New Real Book - dashes and underscores without fail.

You're right, it's rather a poor example. It's also not really a lead sheet, more a fragment of music in lead sheet style. I'll see if I can make a better version, unless someone beats me to it. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See: Image talk:Lead Sheet.jpg Hyacinth (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion at Talk:Accidental (music)#Inflections vs accidentals concerning the definition of "accidental" and its relation to sharp and flat signs and key signatures. Hyacinth (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article:

Main article: Intelligent notation (music)

In 2000, a London based composer named Chris Witten began to write compositions that used digital graphic animation programmes to create scores that changed and evolved while they were being performed. Intelligent notation scores can only be read and performed from a computer screen (known as a visual display unit). The first works were written on the programme Microsoft PowerPoint, but Witten and other composers have since used more advanced programmes such as Adobe Flash. Intelligent notation is unique in musical notation history, as it is the first format of notation that necessitates significant interaction between the work and the performer. As computer technology has developed, so have the compositions using the notation, and several techniques are now used within works in order to increase the excitement of performance. Examples include: works incorporating a randomly generated sequence of notes that change on the screen each time the work is 'activated'; works using graphic notation that feature lines changing direction and colour throughout the performance; and advanced graphic notation scores that incorporate moving photographs and silent videos. As well as providing more varied and exciting performance opportunities, intelligent notation also appeases environmental concerns by never having to be printed on paper, similar to computer musical notation.The Intelligent Notation Foundation was set up in 2004 to archive, educate and promote intelligent notation.

Is this notable or citable?--Dbolton (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article seems very short on citations, and I find many of the dates - er - surprising. Surely 'barlines' to coordinate parts go back at least to Ars Nova? And what is the source for the four different note durations in 10th century? Even Perotin in c1200 is only using two (or, arguably, three). These are just two of the dodgy and uncited statements. Can some expert go through this and add citations, please?

OldTownAdge (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been tagged with {{refimprove}} since since March 2007. I have moved the tag to the top.

For specific points, such as those you mention, you can tag them with {{fact}}.

--Jtir (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the "Further reading" section.[1]

• Read, Gardner (1978). Modern Rhythmic Notation. Victor Gollance Ltd including Chopin's final special new year concert 1.1.1850

Chopin died in 1849, so this doesn't make any sense to me.

--Jtir (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a similar addition to simple:Music that appears to be vandalism. --Jtir (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

diff

From what I see on the remarks page of the JCS web site, it looks like a vehicle for the compositions of a single individual. Scarcity of google hits, a focus on computer minutiae on the main site page and a declaration on the remarks page that the intent of "phase two" is basically to take the project underground for an extended time, all lead me to doubt that this is notable encyclopedia material. Besides all that, the notation itself looks like something it would take serious dedication to read fluently, for what benefit? __Just plain Bill (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it looks non-notable and verging on the spammy. The text was added again, and I've just reverted it. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DareNotBecause, I'd like to see what you have to say about the notability of the JCS notation system. Do you use it?

A little reading will show you why it was deleted from this article. In addition, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true, or intelligent.

__Just plain Bill (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, there is a guideline on notability. --Jtir (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Modern Notation" section, a sheet music sample image is used that purports to be from a Chopin prelude. However, as admitted by the uploader (sic) "This is my own edition and arrangement of the Chopin No. 7 Prelude. It was created Feb. 20, 2007", this image is not from an original composition sheet music written by Frédéric Chopin. Why not use a Chopin's (or any other composer's) original? --AVM (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed unsourced material from the section: Perspectives of musical notation in performance and composition. I did a google search and can't find Effel Publications. It does not seem to exist. This material was the original template used by a spammer who linked an advertisment for webcam piano lessons to this article with links hidden in citations. Juri Koll (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above comments by AVM and Juri Koll,

1. This is not from a Chopin Prelude; it is the complete Prelude. Ideally, I could have copied directly from a Henle Urtext edition, but this would be an infringement of copyright. Most other editions usually contain minor changes made by the editor...particular regarding dynamics, fingering, etc., and many of these appear in Wikipedia. The extent of modifications from the original are:

a) The addition of "mp" (bar 9) [an appropriate dynamic change on repeated material].

b) The addition of a dynamic accent on a half-note (bar 12) [appropriate at the climax point].

c) The addition of agogic accents to three alto notes (bars 13-14) [an important counter-melody].

d) The addition of "rit. e dim....." leading to a "pp" and a fermata in the final bar.

These minor modifications are based upon valid performance practices in the music of Chopin, and are heard in the interpretation of virtually every pianist. If you can provide better, I am sure it will be welcomed.

2. Juri, the reference to "Brushed With Blue" has stood the test of time. It was included in a major revision of this article in 2007. The revision was the result of untold hours of research by myself and 2 other editors, as the records show. Finally a musician/administrator put the finishing touches on the article, and chose to retain the "Brushed With Blue" reference.

The quote is indeed referenced...the composition was published by Effel Publications in 2002. This small publisher was registered with the Canadian government, but upon a name change, allowed the old registration to lapse.

Juri, I wonder why you even brought up the subject of "Brushed With Blue" under the heading, "Objections to using Image:Chopin Prelude No. 7.JPG. (???) It would have been appropriate to create a new heading.

How on earth can you claim, "This material was the original template used by a spammer who linked an advertisment for webcam piano lessons to this article with links hidden in citations." (???) And PLEASE, stop writing your derogatory essays on my talk page. Your arguments are outrageous and appear to be nothing more than retribution for the stand I have taken on the Richard Kastle article.

I have therefore restored the material you reverted. Prof.rick 14:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the notation used on games like Guitar Hero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.62.154 (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the section on piano roll notation at Graphic notation (music).--dbolton (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juri, apparently you have not read the above notes. Several other editors and I worked long, tedious hours on this article. Finally, it was reviewed by an Adminstrator, and the reference to "Brushed with Blue" was kept. It does NOT presently link to another website, and cannot possibly be regarded as spam. Again, you are seeing things through your own tunnel vision. I shall therefore restore the information which you deleted, and which is most relevant to the article.

Juri, are you trying to get even for my objective edits on the Richard Kastle page? Prof.rick 04:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You may not be able to find a reference to Effel Publications...it was a small publishing company, registered with the Government of Canada. Effel specialized in "limited edition" publishing, although copies are still available through Remenyi House of Music, Toronto. (UMMMM...better than YUM!!!) I will soon be posting an audio of Brushed with Blue, No. 2, to my own website, and possibly on YouTube. I hope you enjoy it! Cheers, Prof.rick 04:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Verification was asked for and none was given. [2] It is unsourced material. It has to be removed as per Wikipedia rules. Juri Koll (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this link is not appropriate. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The first two paragraphs don´t tell us anything about musical notation. I think they belong to another article. Should we replace them?--Knight1993 (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph reads "Music notation or musical notation is any system that represents aurally perceived music, through the use of written symbols", and the second begins and ends "The earliest form of musical notation can be found in a cuneiform tablet that was created at Nippur, Iraq in about 2000 B.C. … Although they were fragmentary, these tablets represent the earliest recorded melodies found anywhere in the world". The first one tells us what music notation is (the accepted function of a lede paragraph), the second tells us of the earliest occurrence. In what way do these "not tell us anything about musical notation"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies. I didn't notice your "headline" identifying your concern with the Arabic music section. Indeed, the first tow paragraphs say nothing at all of relevance to notational systems (at least, not the way the section is presently written). I would advise you to be bold and lop them out. If another editor can see a reason for restoring them, then let him or her provide the necessary connecting threads.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don´t worry, this things happen to me quite often. So, I think I´ll out them in the Arabic music article. Thanks--Knight1993 (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One assumes you mean the Arabic music section of this article rather than the article Arabic music, and that the misuse of "out" as a verb in this context means "remove". In this case, I endorse your contemplated action.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Bad, I was trying to say "put", not "out".--Knight1993 (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your typo, I think, since O and P are neighboring keys on a QWERTY keyboard. And that sounds like a good place for the paragraphs: recycle, rather than discard!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a blog that is about "Anything to do with animated notation, video notation, real-time notation and basically any kind of "active" musical notation. Links to audio and video examples, articles,papers and discussions, people and groups, tips and tools." Animated and real-time musical notation meaning information for the performers of a composition; not an animation/visualisation of music/musical sound

http://animatednotation.blogspot.com/

Do you think there is a place for this anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.201.2 (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment, since it doesn't appear to be authored by a notable expert in the field. Some of the work that blog links to, on the other hand, could be interesting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly covered in a section I may have skipped. However, Synthesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesia) has a piano notation I believe need to be added to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nborders1972 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the short article on the apparently near-totally non-notable topic of Simplified music notation be merged here. The current sources in that article consist of a local newspaper article and a self-published free hand-out (see Worldcat). I'm aware that this article too is not without its problems; I don't think such a merge would add to them. An article on Alternative systems of Western musical notation might perhaps be one step towards resolving them? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DIsagree on the concept of merging, although agnostic about the notability of the topic in question. Seems like a lot of the "Other systems and practices" are pretty obscure too, but if (if!) the topic is worthy of mention, there's no reason it shouldn't have its own article. And since this is an overview article, no reason to spin the whole "other systems" section off. Love that that article uses the word "whilst", though. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Came across an intriguing image of what is presented as a notation system from Egypt c. 400ce.

http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcvdngf2K61r5yt7ko1_1280.jpg

It is described in Theresa Sauer's book, Notations 21, Mark Batty Publisher, USA, 2009 on pages 290-291, as: a Coptic score that demonstrates Ptolemy's theory of Harmonia Mudi; the colored circles represent chromatic tones; their circumference indicates duration and rhythm; at the top is an inscription in Greek that means "spiritual harmony, or more literally "spiritual chord." I can't find a way to verify any of this. I emailed Sauer and asked her if she could tell me where this artifact is kept, etc., but have yet to receive a response. Does anyone know anything about this artifact?Jacques Bailhé (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Musical notation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120524070949/http://www.olga.net/ to http://www.olga.net/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150701200951/http://www.emusician.com/ar/emusic_xml_music/ to http://emusician.com/ar/emusic_xml_music/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found a new interesting book on musical notation. Just added the external references — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaudiaSpitz (talk • contribs) 10:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Musical notation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080609090628/http://www.britac.ac.uk/events/2004/abstracts/2004-bagley.htm to http://www.britac.ac.uk/events/2004/abstracts/2004-bagley.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311024006/http://www.musicmarkup.info/ to http://www.musicmarkup.info/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be, because we certainly could use a better description of this important aspect of music in the modern world. It would feel more balanced if there was less here and a great deal more in its own article.

I just don't know what the title of this article would be. Feels like a stupid question, but I don't know the answer. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently lacks an explanation of why what is entitled as 'modern staff notation" has Italian language-specific tempo indications (e.g. Andante, Allegro) and dynamic markings which are Italian language-specific abbreviations (e.g. f = forte, p = piano, mp = mezzo piano).

(I believe this is because Italians pioneered the first mass music notation printing as explained in the article "History of Music Printing": [The father of modern music printing was Ottaviano Petrucci, a printer and publisher who was able to secure a twenty-year monopoly on printed music in Venice during the 16th century.])

Although identified in separate article, this should be referenced within the staff notation explanation paragraphs.

For a start, tempo indications are not a part of staff notation, but a supplement to it. Second, Italian-language markings are not the only ones used in music, even if they are more common in English-speaking areas than any other language. In France, French is the usual choice; in Germany and Austria, German is often used, especially after the middle of the 19th century. As far as Petrucci is concerned, tempo indications in his day were non-existent, unless you consider the tempo implications of the various mensuration signs used up until then. In any case, if he had used words, they would more likely have been Latin than Italian in the very early 16th century. The use of such verbal supplements, as well as dynamic markings, only comes into use in the 17th century, and it is almost certainly the Italian dominance of opera that spread the language across the rest of Europe. When the most famous singers in the opera houses, and the most famous virtuoso instrumentalists came from Italy, composers would be very foolish to write performance instructions in Polish, Russian, Swedish, or English. Beyond opera, most of the exciting new musical forms were developed in Italy (the concerto, the sonata, the oratorio). Italian was the international musical language throughout the 17th and 18th centuries so, naturally, musicians of other nations were well-advised to familiarize themselves with it. Also, many of the words that eventually became tempo indications were originally expression marks, with nuances easily comprehended by Italian speakers ("allegro", for example, does not mean "fast" but "merry"; "largo" means "broadly", and so on). The French were the first to resist, as part of the nationalist programme fostered by Louis XIV under the musical oversight of Jean-Baptiste Lully (ironically, an Italian immigrant to France), but by the early 19th century the influence of Italian musicians was on the wane, and Germans became increasingly prominent outside of the German-speaking territories. This story perhaps needs a dedicated section, and certainly should not be bound up with staff notation as such.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks Slavic to me, there are some ь, ч, ю and ъ there... א. א. אינסטלציה (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the image description: "Book of Hymns at the Lord's Resurrection (Romanian: "Anastasimatar bisericesc"), page #11, translated from Greek and printed in Romanian with Cyrillic characters by Macarie the Hieromonk in 1823 in Vienna. It depicts the Byzantine music notation style."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find an answer to this question!? CrickedBack (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it wasn't "invented" at all. It developed over a period of centuries. It's like asking when the English language was invented. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"English is a West Germanic language that originated from Ingvaeonic languages brought to Britain in the mid-5th to 7th centuries AD by Anglo-Saxon migrants from what is now northwest Germany, southern Denmark and the Netherlands." CrickedBack (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CrickedBack: you might find better answers if not somewhere on Wikipedia, on dedicated places like the Music section on StackExchange. Talk pages of Wikipedia articles serve for discussing the articles themselves. –Vipz (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question should also say what is considered the "standard form" of music notation. I presume that it may involve staves of five lines; but how many? With barlines crossing several staves? Keyboard scores, with two staves (often but not always of five lines) and with barlines, appear in the 16th century at the latest. See W. Apel, The Notation of Polyphonic Music 900-1600, Cambridge, Mass., The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1953. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today there are some musical notations that you can use to reproduced a piece of music. There are others that you can not use to reproduce a piece of music.

The difference marks the formation of standard music notation.

That is such a phenomenal paradigmatic shift that it was taught to be in highschool, and I thought it would be common knowledge to anyone talking on a page about musical notation.

You can criticise the above for being implicitly enthnocentric, but apart from that - unless my highschooling education was not correct - I think my position is pretty reasonable. CrickedBack (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it would be normal for an article about a thing to contain information about when that thing started to exist in it's current form. This article does not. CrickedBack (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should first define what you call the "standard" form of notation:

• You probably mean staff notation, i.e. notes written on, or between, parallel horizontal lines. This appears in the 11th century, I think, but the number of lines was limited to the needs of each particular melodic line. On the other hand, polyphony at times was written on one staff of often ten or more lines. I think that writing on staves of five lines became common in the 16th century, but along staves with more (or less) lines. Let's assume that five-line staves became "standard" in the end of the 16th or early 17th century.
• Note shapes determining their duration appear in the late 13th century, but with a variety of shapes and significations. Once again, it is difficult to say when this became "standardized" – perhaps in the 16th century, maybe linked with the apparition of music printing.
• Then there are additional points to consider: time signatures, key signatures, barlines, etc. Even in the 17th century, for instance, key signatures were not fully standardized, key signatures with flats often lacking one flat compared to our modern usage.
• Even in the 19th century, the usage was not fixed as to where the notes would be written in the bar: we tend to group them according to the point of attack, for instance a whole note in one voice written above or below the first of four quarter notes in another voice. In the 19th century, one finds scores where the whole note is written in the middle of the bar. Do you consider this important for the "standardization"?

If you consider the variety of fonts that come with notation softwares (Finale, Sibelius, etc.), you might even say that notation is not standardized today. So, once again, what do you call "the standard form of notation"? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]