This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
The article as it currently stands says that “a slight melisma” is necessary to fit Burns’s poem to the traditional melody we all know. Technically, however, a “slight melisma” is a contradiction in terms. A melismatic setting of a text, by definition, has lots of extra notes per syllable, not just a few here and there. Roughly speaking, we might say, rather, that this setting is "neumatic"--or, more simply and accurately, "not strictly syllabic". TheScotch (talk) TheScotch (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an extension of this discussion, the text currently reads:
> Most common usage of the song involves only the first verse and the chorus. The last lines of both of these are often sung with the extra words "For the sake of" or "And days of", rather than Burns's simpler lines. This makes the song strictly syllabic, with just one note per syllable.
But this isn't accurate as the earlier lines of "for auld lang syne" have two notes for "auld" and "syne". While adding "the sake of" might make the last line strictly syllabic, it doesn't make the whole song strictly syllabic. DylanJKennedy (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stands says that the lyric is “commonly sung” to a pentatonic melody. While it is true that the tune as represented in the article is strictly pentatonic, the tune as it is more commonly sung or played is not. In the key of F, its third note is usually E, the diatonic leading tone, rather than a repetition of F, the tonic. Now it may well be, as far as I know, that the strictly pentatonic version is older and in some sense or other more authentic, but the article needs to at least acknowledge the tune as it is more usually performed and represented. TheScotch (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many folk tunes that are characteristically "pentatonic" acquire the odd sharpened leading note in popular versions without becoming "diatonic". But changing the article to reflect this would require a good source. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a comment from a Japanese ethnomusicologist friend, which suggests the "commonly sung or played" aspect is more complex:
The third note should be F, if you strictly follow the music on Japanese school textbooks.
But I suppose this kind of change would be quite natural for Europeans. They abandoned rich Greek tradition of modes and simplified to major and minor scales long time ago, so they always want leading tones. Somehow similar example I heard was Japanese national anthem “Kimigayo” recorded and played at Olympic Games in Munich, West Germany. Kimigayo is based on (if using Western terminology)
Dorian mode, so the melody ends on the second note of the major scale: if in the key of C, the final four notes are A, G, E, D. But Germany added C after D: my guess was that they (unconsciously?) wanted the melody to be fit in C major scale. Martindo (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A better word to describe the process in non-English-speaking countries "in the East" might be "adaptation" or "acculturation". Or dare we say "cultural appropriation" here? Martindo (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that any word that requires quotes around it to explain it's not to be taken literally, is not a good choice of word. Quotes suggest it is merely a turn of phrase that someone has said. But who? It's not a quote. Better to have a word that means exactly what it says. --Escape Orbit(Talk)09:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leave the quotes off then - they are only there because the word suggested is used in a slightly unusual sense - it is however in that sense exactly the right word. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the quotes, but then I looked at the examples again and realized most refer to melody, not "song" per se. This distinction also suggests that the appearance is evidence of popularity, not actual adoption or even naturalization of the song as a whole. Martindo (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at this point we're talking about the melody, not the song as such. But what the use of the word "naturalisation" referred to is the way the tune has been adopted as a national song (even an anthem) in various Eastern countries, because its pentatonic lilt doesn't sound "Western". Actually "adopted" gets the meaning across much better than "popularity" (which has nothing to do with the case) - even if "naturalisation" is better still. I'm tempted to return to Escape Orbit's edit as at least not missing the point altogether, but it's really not worth a possible edit war. Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did say in the summary LET'S tweak it, so I don't see any edit war here, but rather a fine-tuning. I think popularity or some "status" influence probably led to the adoption/adaptation of the tune, so I'm open to someone coming up with another tweak, especially if it works with a whole sentence to clarify, not just swapping a single word. Martindo (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the above addition to Pentatonic discussion. My ethnomusicologist friend comments further:
"Nationalisation??? I think these are like pronunciations of loan words."
(My example: the first word in the sushi dish "kappa maki" is typically pronounced by English speakers with a vowel like "cap".) Martindo (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
