Talk:Tonnetz

Misc.

mmmmmmmm . . . doughnuts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.249.136.184 (talk • contribs)

last links don't work some more could be given about recent developments —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.145.135 (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:C-Dur_Schema_harmonisch-rein.jpg Hyacinth (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing "Chart" section

Euler's image (above) may be familiar, with a few adjustments, to modern musicians. For example, today it is far more common to represent the tonic-dominant relationship vertically and ascending (C-G), while in contrast Euler represents it vertically but descending (G-C). Submediant and mediant relationships are represented horizontally and diagonally, as they may be today.

 ------F--   --E-DbA#-
      /\     --|/|/|--
 ----C-A--   --A-GbD#-
    /\/\     --|/|/|--
 --G-E-Cb-   --D-B-G#-
  /\/\/      --|/|/|--
 D-H-Gb---   --G-E-C#-
  \/\/       --|/|/|--
 --E-Db---   --C-A-F#-
    \/       --|/|/|--
 ----B----   --F-D-B--

While Euler was attempting to represent the systematic relationship between notes in what today is called just intonation, the contemporary chart represents these relationships within equal temperament.

The "Chart" section of the article has unsourced information and is poorly formatted. What's more, the claims it makes (that modern representations of the Tonnetz usually orient the perfect relationship as ascending) do not match my experience -- publications by Richard Cohn and Dmitri Tymoczko orient this relationship horizontally. If someone wants to add it back in with sources to back up the claims and better formatting, by all means go ahead. But I think it doesn't provide very useful or relevant information anyways. Shugurim (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

wrong symbols for double sharp

The correct symbol is , not ♯♯ as the lead illustration has it. Double sharp (talk) 04:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

About the rediscovery of the Tonnetz by Naumann

The article includes in its section "History through 1900" the following statement:

The Tonnetz was rediscovered in 1858 by Ernst Naumann.

This most probably refers to Naumann's book Über die verschiedenen Bestimmungen der Tonverhältnisse, published in Leipzig in 1858. Yet, I have been unable to find any reference to the Tonnetz, or any image of it, in this book. From a closer examination, I think that the mistake comes from the fact that von Oettingen, in his Harmoniesystem in dualer Entwickelung, published eight years later, explains that as he was not concerned with absolute pitches, he did not make use of the notation used by Naumann and Hauptmann before him (and known today as Helmholtz' notation, using capitals and lower case letters, and apostrophes for higher notes, say C c c' c" etc.). This apparently was mistaken for a reference to the Tonnetz in Naumann.

The question interests me much, as I try to reconstruct the history of the Tonnetz, and I'd be interested by any information available on this point, expecially if contributor 24.61.186.119 is still around: he added the mention of Neumann to the article on 30 April 2014, but has been inactive since then.

Thanks in advance. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I found a source that answers my question, on https://europeanmusictheory.eu/, and modified the first paragraph of History through 1900 accordingly. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)