Talk:Two hundred fifty-sixth note

Even shorter notes

I'm extremely sure that such notes can be difficult to read. Has anyone proposed an alternate way to write 256th notes so that they can be read easily?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

There's always the 18th-century notation where the last flag is replaced by a stroke going through the stem like an acciacatura (the notehead is still normal size, though). But it doesn't work very well for beamed notes. Double sharp (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I doubt they come up often enough for anyone to really care, BTW. The only reason anyone cares about 256ths, and nobody cares about 512ths, is that Mozart, Beethoven, and Vivaldi all used 256ths in a few exceptional pieces, while 512ths were never picked up by any famous composer. Double sharp (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, speaking of this, I don't think I've ever seen unbeamed 128ths or 256ths in a piece... Double sharp (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This is ridiculous!

The article says:

LilyPond can write beamed notes as short as a 1073741824th (= 2^30th) note.

This is ridiculous! How can such a note be distinguished from the barely longer notes?? Extrapolation of the standard notation for short notes would give this note a total of 28 beams; there's no easy way to tell how many there are without counting. So, how is this note easy to understand?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If they are engraved correctly (as in this picture), it matters not that no one in their right mind would count the beams: you just see that the stems are a little longer than they would be if there were one less beam. This is how I first read through the slow movement of Beethoven's third piano concerto: you can't count the beams of the 128ths and 256ths at a glance, but you can distinguish them from each other, and you can compare them by referring to the 16th or 32nd notes that should be present in the slower-moving accompaniment. (BTW, since you can subitize up to around 4 objects, you can easily recognise notes up to the 128th by counting the spaces between the beams. Anything taller is almost certainly a 256th.) Of course, no one in their right mind would write 2³⁰ths, but in any case it's not so much a matter of what people would use, but a matter of what can be written using programs. Double sharp (talk) 14:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

How short to be specific??

Let's examine this statement:

Brian Ferneyhough uses many note and rest values well smaller than 256th in his 2014 work Inconjuctions. In addition to occasional 512th rests, there are multiple examples of 4096th notes. Many of these are also contained within tuplets, making their ratio to the whole note even smaller.

Tuplets can be defined by how many are needed to make a whole note. A regular eighth note is 1/8. An eighth note triplet is 1/12. A sixteenth note is 1/16. A sixteenth note quintuplet is 1/20. A sixteenth note sextuplet is 1/24. A sixteenth note septuplet is 1/28. A thirty-second note is 1/32. And so on. (Note the difference between a sixteenth note triplet and a sixteenth note sextuplet. Both notes are 1/24 of a whole note, but the difference is that a sixteenth note triplet is part of an eighth note beat, and a sixteenth note sextuplet is part of a quarter note beat.) What kind of 4096th note tuplet does Ferneyhough use?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

You can read the score for yourself here. Knowing Ferneyhough, it is probably some ungodly mess of nested tuplets. Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

"Semihemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemiquaver" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Semihemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemiquaver. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 26#Semihemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemiquaver until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

If there is such a word as "semihemidemisemihemidemisemihemidemisemiquaver" then its only purpose is to show that such a word "exists" because someone said so in Wikipedia. This should not be how things work.

If there is sudh a word, it "exists" solely because its "existence" is used to prove that it "exists".

"8192th note" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 8192th note. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 5#8192th note until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 16:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistency (removed)

Earlier, it said "The shortest note value to have ever been used in a published work is the 1024th note (notated incorrectly as a 2048th) in Anthony Philip Heinrich's Toccata Grande Cromatica" followed by "Brian Ferneyhough uses many note and rest values well smaller than a 256th note and rest in his 2014 work Inconjunctions. In addition to occasional 512th and 1024th rests, there are multiple examples of 4096th notes." Given that Inconjunctions was published by Peters, this is wrong and I have already fixed it. Wilh3lm^{Go here to trout me if I do a stupid} 12:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Heinrich Toccata

I have prepared a new corrected edition of Heinrich's Toccata Grande Cromatica, now available from IMSLP under the CC BY-NC-SA license. I am considering replacing the screenshot of the original publication of the piece with that of the same excerpt in my new edition. What do you guys think? Should I do this? Wilh3lm^{Go here to trout me if I do a stupid} 22:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes i support this since it will look better. Jquesada123 (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

"In addition to occasional 512th and 1024th rests, there are multiple examples of 4096th notes?"

What does "there are multiple examples of 4096th notes" mean? Which piece of music uses this note value? Χιονάκι (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no source that verifies its use. Χιονάκι (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Double sharp, 4096th notes have been used; Χιονάκι (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

You will find them in the Ferneyhough score (ref. 9); unfortunately, it's not accessible online anymore. Double sharp (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

And in which piece have 512th and 1024th rests been used? Χιονάκι (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

The same one according to the referencing, though I don't remember that as clearly. Double sharp (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Are 2048th notes used in a musical piece, except for two 1024th notes in the Toccata Grande Cromatica, which are incorrectly written as 2048th? Χιονάκι (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

8192nd notes

@Double sharp, are 8192nd notes also used in a piece? Χιονάκι (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Not in any piece that I'm aware of, but that doesn't prove that they've never been used. Double sharp (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Double sharp, This piece haves 32,768th notes. What is the smallest note value that has been used in a non-experimental musical composition? Χιονάκι (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

[Original research] tag in lead

Isn't it just simple arithmetic?

The ratio of a 256th-note to a quarter note = 256 / 4 = 64 64 × 18.75 = 1200

As per WP:CALC I don't see why it would be tagged as original research. Chester 🇭🇰 (talk | contribs) 12:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say its borderline ... the calculations are routine but the conclusions are not and need a source. Graham87 (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Whether it is original research or not, the effect depends on pitch and note length. At 220 to 440 Hz, for example (the octave a-a around central c), the tempo would need to be some 200 bpm to 400 bpm for a 256th note tremolo to be perceived as a single pitch. For other note lengths this changes accordingly. If the effect is worth mentioning, it would be better to put it in the Tremolo article, as it is not characteristic of the 256th note. — YewBowman (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)