Humanities desk
< August 23	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 24[edit]

Naming taboo in 1620s or c. 1750 England?[edit]

Hi! I was cleaning up some ReferenceExpander damage at Lewis Pope and ran into an oddity during verification. The article states Pope was MP for Taunton in the 1620 parliament, sourced to Notitia Parliamentaria (1750). Problem is, there's no mention of any "Lewis Pope" in that volume according to the OCR at gbooks, and no one surnamed Pope listed in the book's index, verified visually. The person listed as MP for Taunton in the parliament claimed is named as "Lewis Hope".

I kept the source and the claim and added a page number and a note to the effect that Pope is called Hope, but did I just make that up? Was there any kind of naming taboo during either the 1620s or c. 1750 in England on the word "Pope"? This is what immediately came to mind due to my experience in Chinese history, but maybe Lewis Pope was just a merchant with the Spanish Company, and Lewis Hope was MP for Taunton.

Advice and regular editorial activity at the linked article welcome. All four sources available in full in English online with no special accounts. Deferring here to anyone with topic area expertise. Folly Mox (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given Alexander Pope it seems unlikely for 1750 (although he was actually a Catholic). Either a typo, or conceivably he did change his name, the way many Germans did in WWI (the Royal Family leading the charge...). Or 2 people. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was Pope. This is the source you want for MPs. Johnbod (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And his stepson was "Moore" not "Moone". Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source above is probably the most definitive available here, but I'll just point out that the name is also given as 'Lewis Pope' in Cobbett's Parliamentary History, vol. 1, at 1174. Shells-shells (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both. I've updated the article with the corrections and improved sources. Not sure why I thought an English parliamentarian from the 1600s would not be independently verifiable by someone like me with no domain knowledge, but thanks for the kind effort to help correct the article, and especially the information about the authority of the first source provided here.

Resolved

Folly Mox (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Committal service for Queen Elizabeth II and Coronation Ceremony[edit]

Hi, towards the end of the committal service of Queen Elizabeth, items of regalia were removed from her coffin. One of which was the Imperial State Crown. Why was it not St. Edward's Crown, this is the more senior crown used at the moment of crowning.

Similarly is there a reason why the orb, Sceptre with the Cross and Imperial State Crown are placed on the coffin. Is there an order of precedence in terms of how important certain items of regalia are? I noticed the same with the coronation ceremony that these were the items worn in the outward procession. Would be curious to know why these items specifically when there are others that could be used (St. Edward's staff, the sceptre with the dove, etc.)

Thanks --Andrew 14:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at Imperial State Crown and St. Edward's Crown, St. Edward's Crown is traditionally only used for coronations, and generally not for any other purpose (and even then it has only been used in seven coronations throughout history, so "traditionally" it wasn't even used that much). --Jayron 32 15:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What years are today's 2% inflation?[edit]

The U.S. federal reserve keeps talking about their target of 2% inflation. What specific years are the prices supposed to match at, like 2010 or 2005? 170.76.231.162 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Here is some background on the 2% target: [1]. The 2% inflation is "over the current prices", not any specific years in the past. It's a year-on-year target; in other words the target is that 2024 prices are 2% higher than 2023 prices. --Jayron 32 15:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are two ways the Fed (and other economists) measure inflation: from the last month to this month (June to July was +0.2%, on a seasonally adjusted basis), and from the same month last year to the same month this year (year-on-year, e.g., July 2022 to July 2023, +3.2%). The consumer price index (CPI), a common measure, is an index based on price level averages in 1982-84.DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine inflation being measured in a short time period of a month. That's like saying from month1 to month2, all the prices stay the same, so 0% inflation. But from month2 to 3, prices could go up 1.1x, so 10% inflation. ?? 170.76.231.162 (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Badly key-signaturing songs[edit]

Look at this URL: https://descubrelamusica.com/the-more-we-get-together

Do you see the key signature they gave the song?? That key signature belongs to the key of D, not G. Do they think the song is in D for any reason?? (Please answer this question with an answer showing that lots of people key-signature songs incorrectly and that the reason can vary.) Georgia guy (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a premise that is wrong in your question, which is that "key signature" is something that 1) all songs must have and 2) all transcribers must agree on and 3) there can only be 1 correct key signature for a song. A key signature is a notational convention, and is not inherent to the music itself. It exists to make it easier for people playing the music to read and understand the sheet music. While some songs have a very strong pull towards a particular key signature (especially if they keep to a very specific set of notes, usually the notes of a major scale or one of the modes of the major scale), lots of music does not necessarily. Arnold Schoenberg famously composed music which lacked an obvious key, for example, as does other music composed with his Twelve-tone technique. The blues, and music based on the blues (like rock) also tends to have problems being transcribed into a key; the prominent presence of blue notes and things like the blues scale and pentatonic scale make notation on traditional sheet music (and thus, key signatures) difficult without the use of copious accidentals. --Jayron 32 17:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jayron32, all songs (including those where there are no sharps or flats) have a key signature. As for #3, I'm aware any key signature is correct for a song depending on how the song is arranged. The 2-sharp key signature is correct for songs in the keys of D major and B minor. (It can be correct for any song if the arrangement for that song is in the key of D major or B minor.) As for #2, which is "all transcribers must agree on", do many arrangers follow their own rules on how to determine when to use a certain key signature?? What are the most common of these rules?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All songs can be assigned a key signature, based on whether or not the transcriber wishes to put on on the staff. It's a notational convention, and not something inherent in the music itself. The "no sharps or flats" is a key signature of course, that's C major. It's not the presence of sharps or flats that determines what makes a good key signature for a song, rather two things go into what key signature will be assigned to a piece of music; 1) music that is strongly diatonic has an obvious key signature, usually, because the 7 notes of the diatonic scale (regardless of mode) owe easily to a key signature. 2) Music that has a strong sense of resolution will have an obvious key signature, even if it uses occasional chromatic tones, or accidentals. For example, many songs which are in the mixolydian mode are often notated as though they were in the parallel major key, since the difference between mixolydian and major is only the flattened 7th; something in the D mixolydian mode (and thus uses all of the notes of the G major scale) could have a "D major" key signature, even though that would require the use of the natural accidental for the C note in D mixolydian (G major key signature would require no accidentals). Also, regarding #2, as I noted above, lots of music is not based on the 7-note diatonic scale of the western classical tradition. I gave you several examples. Key signature makes less and less sense when you're dealing with music that isn't. If you really want to go down a music theory rabbit hole on key ambiguity, spend some time looking at the "What key signature is Sweet Home Alabama in?" debate that was raging through the music theory world in late 2019. It involved the exact same key ambiguity between G and D that you are having above.Here is a synopsis of the debate, and if you want some more perspectives, both Adam Neely [2] and Paul Davids[3] did good deep dives on the subject on their respective youtube channels, and the same debate inspired 12tone to make This video, which I highly recommend you watch. There's also This video from 12tone, which explains the problems with analyzing music with such a strong focus on key signatures, to the detriment of other aspects of music theory. --Jayron 32 17:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I did look at your song. I would have probably used the G key signature for that one, because it uses both the notes of the diatonic G major scale AND the song resolves obviously to "G" (the word "be" lands on a half-note G, the only half note in the whole melody). The transcriber has decided to notate it in D mixolydian, because of the use of all the natural accidentals on the C. No idea why. You'd have to ask them. So, yes, to answer your original question that song has an obvious tonic note. It's G. However, that notwithstanding, musical key is not a concept baked into the physics of music, and I stand by my original tangent as valid in general (even if I didn't directly answer your question). --Jayron 32 18:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a mistake to me, that's all. Why not ask the arranger on his Facebook page? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]