Talk:Octave

Music theory High‑importance

	Music portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Notes "in an octave"

This sentence confuses me: "Notes in an octave 'ring' together, adding a pleasing sound to music." What does it mean for notes to be "in an octave"? Does that mean the notes are one octave apart? This phrase sounds like music jargon, used without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.240.255.24 (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds to me as if the word "relationship" was accidentally omitted after the word "octave". Your edit seems equally suitable.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting note

It should say that ocatives start at C, and not A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.96.131 (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency level?

See this diff. It appears that frequency level is a term of art similar to the more widely familiar power level, expressed in decibels. If this bit of content is to be kept, it could be clarified, and might fit better in the section on octave bands.

Aside from that, the prose of the "Explanation and definition" could be tightened. I'm willing to have a go at that, and will wait a while to see what others want to do with the frequency level stuff. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I also wondered about the footnote that reads "ANSI/ASA S1.1-2013 Acoustical Terminology". I had a look at that. Definition 3.05 of ASA S1.1 says : "Frequency level. Logarithm of the ratio of a given frequency to an appropriate reference value. The base of the logarithm and reference value should be indicated." There are three annotations, describing what the unit of frequency level is in logarithms of different bases, and Annotation 1 indeed states: "If the base of the logarithm is 2, the unit of frequency level is the octave." This in no way defines the octave, it merely defines the unit of frequency level in the case of log₂. The other two annotations add that the unit would be the semitone for a logarithm of base 2^1/12 and the decade for a logarithm of base 10.

The definition of the octave is given in 12.22: "The interval between two tones whose frequencies (or fundamental frequencies) stand in the ratio of 2:1." The fact that it becomes the unit of frequency level for a logarithm of base 2 is but a consequence of this definition. And the statement under discussion is fully redundant both with the lede and with the formula that comes before, "Number of octaves = log₂(f₂/f₁)". I therefore delete it. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question on term definition and usage (reposting)

Reposting here on behalf of 188.120.128.39:

This paragraph uses a whole new definition of octave (the very entry it is describing) in the parenthesis - instead of an interval, it is used here as a position marker for the "height" of the pitch. This may be a certain use for the term but it is different than the one explained before and is used without warning. Is an octave something other than an interval? This sentence seem to suggest it is, so it must be explained prior.

ComplexRational (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good remark. Musicologists probably unduly use the word "octave" to denote what may more properly be termed the "register." — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong from the start

The current version says "perfect octave (sometimes called the diapason) is a series of eight notes occupying the interval between (and including) two notes..." This is just plain wrong. An octave is two notes that define an interval, one note called the fundamental and a second note with a frequency twice or half that of the fundamental. The octave has nothing to with how many intervals are defined inside it. I have corrected the opening sentence. 174.56.100.87 (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: No need to bring in the concept of the fundamental. "An octave is the interval between two notes with frequencies that differ by a factor of two." or "An octave is the interval between two notes, one with twice the frequency of the other." I'm too inexperienced with Wikipedia editing to change the article. Wcmead3 (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "series of notes" bit from the definition. The relevance of seven notes (or eight, if one includes both end points) may find a place in the "Explanation and definition" section. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There remain a few questionable affirmations in the definitions(s):

"sometimes called diapason." This is not what the reference given says, it merely explains diapason, the ancient Greek name for "octave."
"In Western music notation, notes separated by an octave (or multiple octaves) have the same name and are of the same pitch class." I don't think that it is in notation that notes an octave apart have the same name or share the same pitch class. Western notation concerns neither of these.
That the octave at times is "designated" P8, and octaves above or below "abbreviated" by 8^a or 8^a bassa certainly does not belong to a definition of the octave, and I fail to see how an octave above or below could be "abbreviated." What is an abbreviated octave?
I don't understand what the statement "Other interval qualities are also possible, though rare" is doing in this article, or how it could apply to the octave.

Even if these could be reformulated to acquire some meaning, they don't belong to the lead. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to these concerns about Western terminology (perhaps a better word than "notation"), if you have B-sharp to the C above or below it, we call that an augmented seventh or diminished ninth, not an octave, but the second note still is (or could be) exactly half or double the frequency. Much as I despise the term "pitch class," it might be more useful in this case. —Wahoofive (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, in French, "pitch class" at times is tranlated as "nominal pitch" (hauteur nominale), a "pitch" defined by its name. B♯ indeed may be at the same pitch as C, but it cannot be the same "nominal" pitch, it does not have the same name. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]