Talk:Homotonal
Add topic | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
I have need of some dates for a few more homotonal works. Can anyone fill in the blanks...?
- Clementi's piano sonata Op.39 No.3 (n.d.) [all movements in D major]
- Clementi's piano sonata Op.40 No.2 (n.d.) [all movements in B minor]
- Clementi's piano sonata Op.50 No.3 'Didone Abbandonata' (n.d.) [all movements in G minor]
Ta! Pfistermeister (talk) 09:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think the Op. 40 is 1801-02 and the Op. 50 is 1821. This is just from allmusic.com DavidRF (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ta! Have now added these...! Pfistermeister (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
More Haydn Symphonies
[edit]I believe Symphony No. 34 (Haydn) and Symphony No. 70 (Haydn) also qualify as homotonal. There's likely more as well, but those are the only ones I know off the top of my head. Haydn liked to shift back and forth between the major/minor of the same keynote. See also double variation where he would do shift back and forth within the same movement. DavidRF (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for this! I've now added both the symphonies you mentioned...! Pfistermeister (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Adjective?
[edit]Why is the article titled Homotonal rather than Homotonality? Having it titled with the adjective instead of the noun seems odd to me. Anyone else have thoughts about this? —Mahlerlover1 (converse) 02:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- You're certainly correct in noting that using an adjective for a complete title, particularly this adjective, is at best awkward, but I'm also dubious about calling the article Homotonality. We can't just go about inventing our own terms. In any case, if all we mean by a homotonal piece is a piece that has all its movements in the same key, then homotonality would seem an absurd reification--there's no thing to make a noun there. I haven't encountered any evidence to suggest that even homotonal is well-established. Grove makes no mention of it. Did anyone other than Keller ever use the term? No, the proper solution, it seems to me, is to merge this article with the Hans Keller article and call it Hans Keller. TheScotch (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Examples
[edit]We don't need anywhere near this many examples. One or two--at most three--should suffice, and they should be incorporated into the main text. Bear in mind that we're talking about something extremely simple here. TheScotch (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)