Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music

Is it just me or is the little score for the jazz vamp/song "So What" is wrong?? The timing of the first bar in the picture is all regular quavers, but the midi sounds like it should be semiquaver, dotted-quaver, semi-quaver, dotted-quaver, semi-quaver and so on...? 202.37.62.121 06:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Jazz charts, it's usual to write a triplet quarter-note and eighth-note pair as two eight notes, and the player is either instructed at the top of the chart, or just implicitly expected to "swing the eighth notes". - Rainwarrior 07:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be translating and incorporating the excellent German page at de:Quartenharmonik over the next few days. (Progress at User:Rainwarrior/quartal translation) - Rainwarrior 15:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! —Keenan Pepper 21:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been slower-going than I anticipated, but I have translated a great deal of the page by now (about two thirds of it, everything except the history, which is coming...). You might want to take a look at it (User:Rainwarrior/quartal translation) and start incorporating this information. A great deal of the image examples are useable without any translation work needed, and the audio examples are just tones and things so they don't need translation either. (References might be a pain though eventually. I have translated the titles, some books I knew English versions of, and some links were to English pages, so there's even stuff down there that could be used.) - Rainwarrior 04:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history section has now been at least turned into English words, if not yet proper English grammar. Cleaning this up will not take too much time. It is for the most part understandable though, if anyone is interested in working on this already. Almost done translating! (phew) - Rainwarrior 03:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. Please incorporate material from User:Rainwarrior/quartal translation into this page. - Rainwarrior 17:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even to replace this entire article with the translation would not be that bad, all of the material here (except the reference to Oliver Nelson maybe) is discussed on the translated page, and almost all of the images are useable without any work. It would mostly be a matter of cleaning out my editorial remarks, which I flagged with "(? )", and after that the changes made would only be minor. - Rainwarrior 17:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've moved all of that stuff from the translation here, translated the images which had German text, and cleaned out the external links to German sites. I could use a proofing by someone else... it's hard to read the same text over and over again. (I have a feeling there's some rough language in the first section.) - Rainwarrior 06:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, seems like the new article is focused on quartal harmony and barely mentions quintal harmony. There are two things we could do: either move this to Quartal harmony and start a stub at Quintal harmony, or do some heavy editing to work in quintal harmony. Too bad there's no German article de:Quintenharmonik... or is that the wrong word? —Keenan Pepper 17:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the wrong word, it's just a very obscure term. True "quintal" harmony doesn't appear very often (the example on the page from The Cage comes to mind), and where it is it is usually mixed with quartal harmony as well. Most often "quartal harmony" is a term used to cover them both. Honestly, I can't remember any reference to "quintal harmony" in any of my music theory readings, and taking a quick look through the indices of the books on my shelf, I can't find it mentioned. I don't think it needs its own page, but this page may deserve a rename with a redirect from quintal? - Rainwarrior 17:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a further check, I tried looking up "quartal harmony" and "quintal harmony" on JSTOR; the former turned up plenty, the latter turned up 3 articles, 2 of which were guides for teaching young composers (mentioning it in a list after quartal), and the last was an article on Charles Ives which again mentions is in a list "quartal and quintal harmony in...". - Rainwarrior 18:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that in every usage I can find, "quartal and quintal harmony" is a synonym for "quartal harmony", and the latter is used much more often. (I can't find any mention at all of "quintal harmony" on its own.) - Rainwarrior 18:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. It does seem a bit unfair though: 4:6:9 is one of my favorite chords. =P —Keenan Pepper 18:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i am the german author of the article "Quartenharmonik". I`m very impressed of your translation. Must have been a lot of work. The next days i will read your translation. Maybe i`ll find some mistakes. If i can help you in any way, please contact me. I see, that you also translated most of the text in the pictures. Perfect ! To your discussion about quintal harmony. I think these expression doesn`t really exist. The fifth is a normal part of tonal chords with first, third and fifth -> (major and minor chords). I would say, quintal harmony is simply what we call tonal system. In german language and musicbooks, the term "Quintenharmonik" doesn`t exist. I don`t know, how it`s in english music-literature. Please excuse my bad english. Have a nice day --Boris Fernbacher 22:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Boris! I worked on it a little bit at a time for about two months. Yes, English theory doesn't often use "quintal harmony", but it means almost the same thing as "quartal harmony". - Rainwarrior 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you make a mirror of fourths (D - G - C), then yo`ve got fifths (C - G - D). An german we say "Komplementärintervall". It`s funny and sometimes difficult to understand, reading my own article in english. Good night --Boris Fernbacher 23:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the translation of Riemann`s words about Scriabin was not correct. I changed it. Maybe in a bad english style. But from the meaning it now matches with the german original. --Boris Fernbacher 00:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your translation is very good and near to the original. Have you studied german at university ? --Boris Fernbacher 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking it over. I'm glad you found that misunderstanding in the Riemann quote; it was probably the most difficult thing to translate. Regarding "Komplementärintervall", we do say "complementary interval" in English, but more often we say "inversion"; they have two different meanings, but when talking about only one interval, they have the same effect. I studied German a little in High School, but I did not understand it until I was at university. I did not take courses in German there, but I frequently read German articles on music (or other topics), and I think it is from this reading that I have learned most of my German. Thank you for the complement; your own English is good, much better than I am at writing German. Thanks for writing such a great article in the first place for me to translate! - Rainwarrior 00:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bradley, the Franz Liszt example: You translated "La lugubra gondola" as "the lazy gondola". I think it has to be translated as "the gondola of grief". In german it`s translated as "Trauergondel". I think also it really sounds more griefing then beeing lazy. Can you imagine yourself a lazy gondola ? Have a nice day --Boris Fernbacher 07:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's right. Sometimes a "lugubrious" thing may seem "lazy", so I had forgotten the meaning of that word. I have changed it to "mournful". Also, I believe it's "lugubre", not "lugubra". - Rainwarrior 08:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think "lugubre" is right. I´ll change it also in the german article. --Boris Fernbacher 08:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too long. Hyacinth 20:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the length, I personally think it's near the edge of what is acceptable, but still okay (WP:SIZE says as much). It's well structured, and it comes to about 10 printed pages. If anything we could move the history section to History of quartal harmony (along with its particular references), but I am not in favour of that option. I don't think it's necessary, and would rather see the history remain with the rest of the article. - Rainwarrior 04:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would cut the Introduction: Intervals and Chord symbols section as it has little to do with quartal harmony and is covered at those articles. Hyacinth 09:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. I think you can remove that section wholesale without disturbing the rest, actually. - Rainwarrior 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended your recent changes:

1. Everything you moved to "further reading" was used as reference for the creation of the article. I don't see any reason why it should be downgraded to "further reading". Is your one source any different from the others for some reason?
2. A random sentence about Tyner and Nelson doesn't really belong at the head of the Jazz section. (A general introduction like what is there is more appropriate.) Tyner is already mentioned actually, but I forgot to add the part about Oliver Nelson when I was translating the German article, sorry.
3. You added a reference to the Musiklexicon with a "?". I assume this is because of the reference to it regarding Skriabin. I believe the actual source of that quote was taken from the book by Gottfried Eberle, but you'd have to ask Boris Fernbacher about that. (I also moved your other reference to the Jazz section of the references.)

-Rainwarrior 04:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE says almost nothing about "further reading", but one of the things it does say about it is that it is for books and links that "have not been used as sources for the article". In the case of this article they were used as a source. They don't particularly make a good "further reading" list, either, as a lot of them contain little more than what was used in the article itself. I really don't get it, why do you keep moving the sources for this article into further reading? - Rainwarrior 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking this should be moved to Quartal harmony. There was a discussion about this above (in the talk about the German translation), but my reason is that "quintal harmony" is a completely obscure term. Quartal harmony is regularly referred to in theoretical writings, but I have yet to find a single source that mentions "quintal harmony" in its own right. In every source I've found it it was only as part of the phrase "quartal and quintal harmony", which was in these cases just a passing reference to the existance of alternative forms of harmony. In sources about quartal harmony, fifth-chords are generally still referred to as part of "quartal" harmony. - Rainwarrior 15:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --logixoul 20:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find much of the discussion confusing or irrelevant, since a lot of it is about melodic use of the fourth. What does a fourth appearing in melody have to do with the subject?

It is also not clear whether the inversions of the common chord (eg E-G-c, G-c-e) count as 'quartal harmony'. I would imagine not, since quartal harmony seem to be defined in contrast to the triadic harmony of common practice.

The history section I do find overlong simply on account of the irrelevant passages which, rather than being about quartal harmony, are actually about any use of the fourth whatsoever. Well, all common practice uses the fourth!! That doesn't make it relevant to quartal harmony.

The music examples I also find confusing. --Tdent 14:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I totally agree. Melodic fourths absolutely do not imply quartal harmony. Just imagine the whole common-practice period using mainly quartal harmony. lol Have no time to edit though... Alexander Daniels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.242.248.220 (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Mozart example, the viola clef is incorrect (should be alto clef, not tenor!) and the notation is corrupted (e.g. D# instead of Eb, A# instead of Bb) so that the harmony is extremely difficult to understand. Either correct the example or find a new one!

Also in the Schoenberg example the viola clef is incorrectly placed. --Tdent 14:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Mozard example is enharmonically incorrect, and the use of the tenor clef is a little odd. The images are hand-editable though, since the lines aren't anti-aliased. You can save them, edit them, and then reupload them over the old ones at the wikimedia commons. - Rainwarrior 19:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the translation has produced sentences which are vague or confusing to the point of meaninglessness. The translation should be thoroughly overhauled by a native English speaker familiar with music theory. For a few examples:

"Quartal harmony imbued modern music with structural commonalities, laying parts more widely separated in space and/or time, allowing for a very different sound."

did this mean anything in German?

"Corresponding to this vertical structuring of chords is a melodically oriented (horizontal) usage of fourths; the parallel theory of quartal melody however has not been put across as of yet."

it seems to me that fourths & fifths have always been used as parts of melody, so I don't know what use would be a specialised theory of "quartal melody". Again, I have to ask why there are so many references to melodic uses of the fourth in the Baroque and Classical "history" sections, when this is irrelevant to the subject of the page.

"The integral design of cadential models - G functions as the dominant of C, this extends again to F and so on - explains why fourths have this property, giving quartal harmony a new tonal centre corresponding to the original by a less stable ratio."

very confusing. What is an "integral design", a "cadential model", a "less stable ratio"?

"Surely it must also be significant, whether it takes many listenings (or a study of the score) for the listener to understand the harmonic situation arranged by the interpretation."

vague and ambiguous.

How does 'Vexierspiel' become 'Carnival-mirror'?? --Tdent 14:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're a native English speaker with knowledge of music theory, I would invite you to dive right in. After I was finished translating it from German, I needed to take a break from it. Since then though it hasn't been high enough on my priorities to come back and re-proofread it (and even so, I think it would still be better for someone else to do it, like you maybe).

No, that sentence doesn't really have much more meaning in the German (even though I think I mistranslated it a little). Looking at the article, that entire sentence should probably be removed.

The "integral design of cadential models" is just "the way cadences work" if you like, though looking at it now, I don't think this "explains" why fourths "tend to forget which key they are in" (might want to change this as well), really. The "less stable ratio" refers to the fourth 4:3 vs the fifth 3:2. I don't think any of this sentence really needs to be in the article, actually. (I would also suggest changing the term "fuse" in the same paragraph.)

The whole paragraph with "surely it must be significant..." is a bit vague, and written oddly (i.e. why does it ask questions?). The sentence about forcing it into a procrustean bed is probably the heart of its content. I can't think of a good way to reword it right now.

I think I misread vexierspiel as vexierspiegel; It should be "puzzle-game" or maybe less literally "riddle". (Does this change the meaning much?)

Anyhow, go ahead and edit it. - Rainwarrior 19:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is brilliant. It offers food for thought whilst delineating the subject with excellence.

Steve Robet LTCM

LTCM = Long-Term Capital Management? "Have you been mis-sold a long-term capital policy...?" LOL! --Jubilee♫clipman 23:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been reviewing this article and it strikes me that there are far too many musical examples for the average Wiki reader. One or two have MIDI files to listen to but most do not. I suspect most readers (even musicians) will glance at the lead and move on... How can we improve it? --Jubilee♫clipman 16:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Addendum - some of it is gibberish any way: see the preceeding post #Incorrect musical examples! --Jubilee♫clipman 17:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to assess this as C only. Aside from the overabundance of musical examples, there is also a great deal of irrelevent material (or material that appears to be, at least):

...in [...] the Sinfonia no.9 there is an extreme density of imitation (very often at the interval of a fourth)... - I'm not convinced that imitation at the fourth counts as "quartal harmony" per se and if it does why the merely parenthetical "very often" and the unexplained example?

The subject of the fugue of the third movement of Beethoven's Piano sonata op. 110 opens with three ascending fourths (A♭ -> D♭ - B♭ -> E♭ - C -> F)... - That usage is melodic not harmonic: the harmony is clearly tertian.

...a connection between Richard Wagner's so-called Liebestod-Melody (Love-Death) from the second act of the opera Tristan und Isolde and Webern's work. Both works set in the leap of a fourth (E♭ - A♭) two semitones downwards (A♭ - G - G♭). - Again the Wagner usage is melodic, though, as I recall, the Tristan chord is quartal to a degree and is not actually mentioned!

All these sections (and others) are actually very well expressed and could be used in an article on "Quartal Melody" (if that is a real term!). Or the context needs to be better explained: "While composers avoided 4th chords in the Baroque, Classical and Early Romantic periods, they did use 4ths melodically and this usage often infomed the underlying harmonies." Or some such.

Any other thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 17:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - #What is or is not relevant to quartal harmony makes the same point. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I just re-read the lead: ...quartal harmony is the building of chordal and melodic structures with a distinct preference for intervals of fourths. - Harmony is based on the simultaneous sounding of notes in different parts, ie chords. Melody is a different concept based on the temporal relationship of the notes within one particular part. This statement in the lead is obviously the genesis of all the melodic discussion (!) found later. If the term really does include melody, then this needs to be clearly explained and sourced. However, the "Introduction" states: Harmony is that part of music theory concerned with the properties of simultaneously sounding tones. This contradicts the lead. There really is a lot of work to be done here... --Jubilee♫clipman 18:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts (From thoughs I sent to another user's talk page) - The article appears to have multiple issues which go way beyond the overabundance of musical examples. While the quality of writing, of itself, is excellent, the actual content appears to be full of inconsistencies and irrelevancies. As I understand it, Quartal Harmony relates to harmony that is based on fourths; the article discusses melody and uses Beethoven's 0p.110, Bach's Inventions and other music written in "Tertian Harmony" as examples of what might be called "Quartal Melody", to coin a phrase. Many of the musical examples are related to that; indeed the article itself contrasts Quartal and Tertian. I'm not even sure if Perotin's fourths and fifths are relevant here, since he mainly uses them in a melodic sense and only between two parts (the third part being a drone). In the sense I understand it, Quartal Harmony was first fully explored by Scriabin based on harmonic ideas he found in Liszt and Wagner (the Tristan chord, for example). It has been exploited ever since by Modernists and Postmodernists. If am right, then the article is full of errors and badly in need of an overhaul. Furthermore, the article is mainly a direct translation of the German page (accomplished by Rainwarrior) as it stood in 2006 - and as it still stands for the most part... Both articles appear to have been accepted as correct for all that time: for that reason I am reluctant to edit it yet. Maybe Quartal Harmony really does include melody? Two minds...! --Jubilee♫clipman 20:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<copied over from Contemporary Music project talk page>The Perotin example needs to go. The harmonic intervals of the time are measured against the tenor (the drone). Perotin and esp. the substitute discant clausulae of the time could be used as examples of quartal harmony at times (as could the earliest parallel organum), but this example is totally wrong. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just as I thought: the Notre Dame School did use a sort of proto-quartal technique at times, but the given example does not actually appear to show this. How about the purely melodic examples from Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner etc? And is all the discussion of Bach's "thick contrapuntal writing" using imitation at the fourth and fifth relevent? --Jubilee♫clipman 15:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think calling it proto-quartal is over stating it. The earliest organum seems to have been in parallel fourths with parallel fifths less common. Fifths quickly became the dominant intervallic force in the last century of the first millennium. By c. 1300 (maybe a bit before; we often put the date too late) the fifths began more and more commonly to be filled by thirds, though true tertial harmony (the idea that stacked thirds are both stable and better than 6-3 sonorities) will have to wait until the second half of the 15th century; and one could say that the seventh creates the first real tertial harmony as opposed to just the triad, so that's what, 1620? (A baroque specialist will know for sure). So to call Perotin proto-quartal is like calling a fish a proto-dolphin -- there's a lot of unrelated intermediate steps along the way.

Btw -- I disagree with the assessment at "C" though: despite some errors, there is a strong argument throughout and not just a bunch of facts. It covers a large swath of history, including non-classical repertories. I think unlike most Wikipedia theory entries which have too few, there are the right number of musical examples (maybe not formatted as well as they could be); compare with other music encyclopedias. The quotes from Hindemith are very important and relevant. Even though to get to GA or FA the article might have to be rewritten from scratch, as it is, it seems better than many if not most classical music "B" articles.

One note: in my reading, Quintal harmony is not considered indistinct from quartal harmony because it is the inversion of the fourth; rather it has seldom been used by composers, perhaps because both the interval is too wide and it has too many tonal implications; for instance, a quintal "triad" is likely to be heard as a ninth-chord with missing 3rd. But Schoenberg's Op. 19 no. 6 is a good example of true quintal harmony). Thanks for all the work, Jubilee, Rainwarrior, and our German colleagues! -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...like calling a fish a proto-dolphin..." - I like it! Actually, you are right that Perotin is not really even proto-quartal: that's my point. Why is he there at all? Why is Beethoven there? Or Wagner? These examples do not relate to "Harmony" in the accepted sense. Perotin's fourths are more often a filling out of the melody, just as an orchestrator might use oboes in parallel thirds. The Beethoven has nothing at all to do with harmony. Worst of all, the Wagner example - ironically - discusses the melody of the Liebestod and fails to examine the all-important Tristan chord (F♮-B♮-D♯-G♯) which actually is "Proto-Quartal" (two fourths juxtaposed). The article cannot be assessed as B-class while these non-examples exist and pertinent examples are missed. (I'll get back to you on "Quintal" - though, FWIW, I think you may be right.)--Jubilee♫clipman 01:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll have to be bold soon and delete all the material that has nothing to do with harmony, including most of the middle section of the article (Perotin, Renaisance, Baroque, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner), and add things that I think have been missed out (eg the Tristan chord). I'll wait another week or so though (but draft things in my sandboxes). --Jubilee♫clipman 04:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC) BTW, our project will probably drop C-class, so this has to go down one for now... --Jubilee♫clipman 04:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the editing process on this article. For the most part I will restrict the edits to the mirror on my user subpage: User:Jubileeclipman/(mirror) Quartal and quintal harmony. I've also created a "shadow" copy of the article prior to my edits: User:Jubileeclipman/(shadow) Quartal and quintal harmony. Several less objectionable edits will be made live to this article itself, where these either tidy up the language or (in the case of the lead) come closer to modern scholarship and terminology. For example, the word "harmony" now tends to be used of music built on chords of three or more notes rather than of "diadic" music, as it were, ie that built on chords of only two notes. Furthermore, because of its modern connotations, the term, though used in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, seems to be an anachronism when used to describe Renaissance polyphony - especially when we try to talk about "Renaissance triadic harmony" or the like. Feel free to comment on my non-live edits on my talk page: User talk:Jubileeclipman. I won't submit these edits to the article itself until: a) I have finished them; and b) any objections are responded to and acted upon. Thank you for your understanding. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be a nightmare... A lot of the statements need to be verified but none of the the translated material has been sourced from English texts. Worse the vast majority of the book list is in German, which most of us do not read! Even worse, the books are not cited in the text, but simply plonked at the bottom as further reading. For example: "Quartal chord sounds have a somewhat "erratic" function, in that they have a tendency to forget which key they are in." Do they? Who pointed this out? Does anyone disagree with this? Etc... I feel I might simply have to purge unverified statements like that when the time comes to purge the stuff I highlighted above (ie the non-harmonic stuff), unless anyone can help source it. We'll see.

Moreover, the translation, has produced some odd phrasing which I have had to clarify. There is also a huge section at the top explaining guitar chords and other tertian usage, but I can't yet see any point to these being there. Maybe I'll move them to the relevent articles. In fact, I might just do that with all the purged material: some of it is insightful and therefore useful to someone, but it is not helpful here. Eek... quite a challenge! --Jubilee♫clipman 02:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any objection to replacing the text of the present article with the text of User:Jubileeclipman/(mirror) Quartal and quintal harmony? I have removed several sections and placed them in User:Jubileeclipman/(removed) Quartal and quintal harmony. Indeed the last three on that page have been incorporated into their respective articles and so have not been lost. There are several other major changes, mainly as regards the actual usage of the word "quartal" and the implications of that usage. One cannot truly call Perotin's music "quartal" nor even Wagner's for that matter. I have also included a section on the Tristan chord in my version of the article. I have also made the usage of US/UK english consistant in favour of UK (which was more used anyway, I think). I feel the US usage of "tone" is ambiguous in a musical context that discusses harmony and have put a note (!) in the intro to explain this. Any thoughts welcome before I dump the text over... --Jubilee♫clipman 22:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider disambiguating these terms:

• dissonance to Consonance and dissonance (2x)
• Sixth to Submediant (?) (2x)
• Pange Lingua to Missa Pange lingua
• Cadence to Cadence (music)

I would also recommend to use the canonical spelling of all composers mentioned in the article, e.g. Béla Bartók instead of Bela Bartok, Josquin des Prez instead of Josquin Des Prez, Johann Fux instead of Johann Joseph Fux, etc., or piped links for cases like Orlando Lasso. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should use the "music" template for accidentals so that the sharps and flats render on all browsers. ♯ ({{music|sharp}}) and ♭ ({{music|flat}}) instead of ♯ and ♭.DavidRF (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]