Talk:Diatonic and chromatic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] A new article to resolve difficulties in certain Wikipedia music articles

I have made a very cursory start on this article, just so that it exists and can now be modified by interested editors. See discussion at Talk:Interval (music), which has recently been shifted to Talk:Diatonic scale. –Noetica 07:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of material at Chromatic scale that should definitely be moved here, especially the Chromaticism section (that redirect should be changed too). Also, with regard to intervals, there's a little bit of material at semitone that can be duplicated here or pointed to that explains the tuning distinction between diatonic and chromatic semitones (i.e. whether or not the interval is connected by an unbroken cycle of fifths). - Rainwarrior 07:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
We also need a way to distinguish the term's use in diatonic function, where "diatonic" seems to mean something like "individual scale degree identity" rather than an antonym to "chromatic". —Wahoofive (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen Diatonic used as an antonym to Chromatic and I'd like to see this substantiated. Sounds like original research again.--Roivas 20:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Noetica keeps referring me to this definition by Percy Scholes that he claims supports his claim that the HM and who knows what other synthetic scales are diatonic. This definition does not support his claim and I want this resolved.--Roivas 20:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

We are too soon into specifics, and it will be best not to clutter this page with quotes, as Wahoofive has said about related pages. Regrettably, though, Roivas has launched right back into detailed debate, and I should respond for the record:
The diatonic scales are the major and minor, made up of tones and semitones (in the case of the harmonic minor scale, also an augmented second), as distinct from the chromatic,... (Percy Scholes, Oxford Companion to Music, "Diatonic and chromatic", 9th edition, 1955).
(That quote, by the way, plainly shows one of the many simple oppositions of diatonic and chromatic that Roivas claims never to have seen.)
And this, for the ascending melodic, just to show the diversity of usage from current sources in the more popular domain. Here we have, from the good people at Britannica, the opinion that while the harmonic is not diatonic, the (ascending) melodic is(!):
The “harmonic” minor that results is, strictly speaking, no longer a diatonic scale, unlike “melodic” minor, which simply borrows its upper tetrachord from the parallel major, i.e., the major scale beginning and ending on the same pitch. (Concise Britannica, "Diatonic".)
This article should proceed in a more orderly way. When we have shifted all discussion to here, we could perhaps archive these present unruly exchanges, and start off afresh.
– Noetica♬ Talk 22:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As Noetica pointed out (I forgot about this definition), the New Grove does have a decent definition of "Diatonic Interval" if you want to use that in the article.--Roivas 21:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Roivas had made the claim that diatonic was not applied to intervals, despite the abundant evidence in Wikipedia and elsewhere that it is. And yes, we could use New Grove in the article. Good idea. It would be especially germane also to show how it equivocates strangely about whether the tritone is diatonic or not, though by New Grove's own definition it plainly is. Such equivocation, and such vagueness, is exactly the issue.
– Noetica♬ Talk 22:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"The “harmonic” minor that results is, strictly speaking, no longer a diatonic scale, unlike “melodic” minor, which simply borrows its upper tetrachord from the parallel major, i.e., the major scale beginning and ending on the same pitch. (Concise Britannica, "Diatonic".)"

The ascending melodic minor scale is definitely not diatonic according to most sources (the two semitones are not maximally separated). I don't like being expected to take the editor's word for it and I'm glad to see a clear, unambiguous source.--Roivas 15:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as the "tritone not being diatonic", I could see how the definition is accurate if it only relates the upper tones of the interval to a common "tonic" in the major and natural minor scales. This explanation breaks down in the Lydian & Locrian modes. Careless lexicographers.--Roivas 20:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diatonic and chromatic intervals

These terms have a very clear meaning in the context of tuning. In Pythagorean tuning and meantone temperament there are intervals which are available within the cycle of fifths (diatonic intervals) and intervals which are not (chromatic intervals). There is a section in the article semitone which explains how this works for diatonic (e.g. C to D-flat) versus chromatic (e.g. C to C-sharp) semitones, but it applies to all interval types. This meaning is actually quite useful in this context, as there is distinction being made about the tuning of these intervals. (Incidentally, the interval type is identifiable by their spelling, anything augmented or diminished is chromatic.)

This article, however, doesn't mention this aspect of the term at all. Instead it focuses on the rather nebulous case of using it in the context of tonal harmony theory, where I don't really think it comes up much, to tell you the truth. - Rainwarrior 07:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rainwarrior, practically all of the inconsistencies of interest, and certainly those that have led to uncertainties and confusions in Wikipedia articles, have to do with the terms as used in the Common practice period. To make our clarifying work manageable at all, it is also highly desirable to limit the large part of this article that deals with that period by assuming equal temperament. This does not mean there is no more to say. Certainly there is much to say about semitones, etc. But see my comments in the next section below.
– Noetica♬ Talk 09:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Why would we omit usages outside of a narrow period of history such as the common practice period? That makes no sense to me. (Are you saying that articles about medieval and Renaissance music don't belong on Wikipedia?) - Rainwarrior 15:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we can incorporate any relevant item you want into the article as long as it's done clearly and based on published sources. If it's going to become a microtonal jargon marathon, then it will only make mud out of the article. Maybe a thorough, concise section can be added about Diatonic scales and the evolution of instrument tuning.--Roivas 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Rainwarrior, Roivas and I seem to agree here. For a start, I think it is perhaps misleading to characterise the Common Practice Period as merely "a narrow period of history". After all, most popular music, and much more, is still largely in the grip of it. Certainly no one is saying that any kind of music is beyond the scope of Wikipedia! Myself, I would be happy to see exhaustive discussion of diatonic and chromatic in all their senses, for all periods. As it stands right now, the article is very new, and yet it does give a glimpse of earlier uses of the terms, to show how they have evolved at least. But the starting intention here has been to sort out a particular unholy mess that has arisen from applications of the terms to common practice music. Keeping all of this clear and under control is going to be a formidable task! I might make some changes in the headings right now, to sequester common practice concerns from other concerns. OK?
– Noetica♬ Talk 22:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A major edit, building on Wahoofive's work

I think Wahoofive has developed the article well, and deserves our thanks. Keeping the same broad structure, I have taken things further, with new references and links, substantial changes of wording, and severe editing of the list of sources. Some of this last editing is for clarity and consistency of arrangement (though more could be done towards that). The rest of it will no doubt be controversial. The disputed and confusing uses of the terms diatonic and chromatic concern common practice only, so sources dealing with terms as applied to Palestrina (who died before 1600) and earlier are irrelevant. They are disputed by no one. Also, looking at the sources listed, I found that some made no relevant judgement at all, while others were wrongly classified. I removed the former, and shifted the latter. A great deal remains to be done. Rainwarrior has made some useful points, above; and Wahoofive has pointed out further requirements above also. That's all fine. We can accommodate those. But before we go too much further, here are some considerations that I regard as crucial for the success of this article, and which I urge editors to reflect on:

  • The matter of the contested usages (and evidence for them), which as I have said concern only common practice, ought to be kept free of material irrelevant to that period. This will require vigilance and restraint. The article must be focused in this way and others, or it will become unwieldy very fast.
  • Many articles at Wikipedia, especially in the area of music, try to do too much. This article will fail if we open the floodgates to deal with competing systems of tuning and the like. I strongly recommend that, except where it is strictly impossible to do so, we confine our exposition by the assumption of equal temperament. Alternatives to this are, for most of our purposes, irrelevant – and utterly discouraging to most readers.
  • One original purpose of this article was to function as a core reference for the two terms with which it deals, so that it can regulate their use throughout Wikipedia. Articles are blatantly inconsistent, even within themselves, in their use of these terms. But we have yet to give recommendations in the article concerning the terms. I think they need to be discussed in detail here first.
  • Let's make an effort to respect each other, and in particular to observe the conventions that make for an orderly Discussion page: sign your name, post at the end of a coherent block of text (don't interpolate carelessly, making the flow of the discussion awkward to follow); don't edit anyone else's contributions here (or your own in such a way as to make references to what you have said incomprehensible), etc.

– Noetica♬ Talk 09:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"The diatonic scales are the major and minor, made up of tones and semitones (in the case of the harmonic minor scale, also an augmented second), as distinct from the chromatic,... (Percy Scholes, Oxford Companion to Music, "Diatonic and chromatic", 9th edition, 1955)."

Is this parenthetical statement part of the definition or is it an editor's addition?--Roivas 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Looks like the Oxford Companion to Music is solid.

Other than that:

The first definition does not directly say that the HM is DIA.

We need to see exact wording from these sources:

1. Harmony: Its Theory and Practice, Ebenezer Prout, 1889 at Amazon

2. Everyman's Dictionary of Music, Eric Blom, 1946 (and later editions)

The only thing we can be sure of is that Prout's book is on sale @ Amazon.com.

If someone can find out what those books say, we can add them back in. Roivas' big library day is on Saturday and I'll have the Prout book to look at.

--Roivas 15:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I added some more definitions. All from the common practice period.

I even found a reference that defies what I'm trying to prove from some obscure music theory book. What are the odds?

I have no problem with someone archiving all those older discussions from Interval (Talk), & Diminished Seventh (Talk). I don't know how to do it, though.

--Roivas 15:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Removal of the Goetschius quote:

Noetica, if you pay a little attention, you'll see how the Goetschius section cleary rules out the HM scale.

First, on page 16, he shows the principle behind constructing a proper Diatonic scale and goes on to say the the HM scale does not conform to it.

Read it again.

--Roivas 20:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my removal of the Goethius quote: I am, in fact, paying the most assiduous attention. The quoted text does not mention any principle for constructing a "proper diatonic scale". It does say this (at paragraph 16): "The diatonic half-step is the difference in pitch between tones that lie five harmonic degrees apart (harmonic degrees are fifths upwards C-G-D-A-E-B...etc. The chromatic half-step is seven harmonic degrees removed," and then "When thus defined, by direct derivation from the key, the natural (or major) scale is found to represent the following succession of whole and half-steps; whole steps between scale-steps 1-2, 2-3, 4-5, 5-6, 6-7; half-steps between scale steps 3-4, 7-8." But there is nothing here to define the term diatonic scale, which is what we are examining.
Really, though, it is easy to find support for the view in question! That is not disputed at all: we all agree that it is a dominant position. If citations that are no better than the Goethius cannot be found by others, I'll find some to add myself.
I am grateful that Roivas has been similarly accommodating, in providing the Karl Wilson citation.
As for Blom and Prout, the latter will be reinstated when we have the text available to cite. If Roivas doesn't get to that, I will eventually.
– Noetica♬ Talk 21:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of Par. 16 is to describe the diatonic scale!

Okay, but if you're going to be that exacting (re: Goetschius), then put the other Grover definition in the ambiguous section since it doesn't exactly say the HM scale is DIA.

If this is merely a contest now I will find more references over the weekend.--Roivas 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope this not a contest. We all want to develop a good unbiased and useful article, I hope.
Why did Roivas again remove the citation of the current Oxford (this time without explanation)? The reason given earlier was this "This definition does not cite the HM scale. It's referrencing chords only." (edit summary). But as I pointed out in my own edit summary restoring it: "Restored OCM entry (current); it makes explicit and decisive mention of the harmonic and melodic minors". Here is the text in question:
diatonic (from Gk. dia tonikos, ‘at intervals of a tone’). In the major–minor tonal system, a diatonic feature – which may be a single note, an interval, a chord, or an extended passage of music – is one that uses exclusively notes belonging to one key. In practice, it can be said to use a particular scale, but only with the proviso that the alternative submediants and leading notes of harmonic and melodic minor allow up to nine diatonic notes, compared with the seven available in a major scale.
This clearly means that in practice the altered notes of the harmonic and melodic scales don't disqualify those scales as diatonic. What other interpretation is at all reasonable? I call for discussion on this point. If we do not get a satisfactory account of an alternative interpretation (which might mean re-allocating the citation to the last, uncertain, category), then the citation ought to be restored.
– Noetica♬ Talk 22:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"...allow up to nine diatonic tones" is ambiguous. It doesn't mean anything.

It's most likely a reference to "diatonic triad construction" in minor and not a claim that the scales themselves are diatonic. Don't be so dismissive of my references and then put that in there. It's too ambiguous. We know what the same dictionary says about the HM scale, so please keep it in the ambiguous section.--Roivas 22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to know how exactly to understand some of these references (one of the major motivations for this article). In fact, though, the point OCM makes is specifically and explicitly about the classification of scales. I accept the re-allocation to "ambiguous" happily, though.
– Noetica♬ Talk 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's trying to define "Diatonic" in some abstract sense. It says "diatonic feature" and applies it to "a single note, an interval, a chord, or an extended passage of music." It doesn't even mention "scale" until a bit later, as if it's trying very hard not to say the HM is DIA, yet account for common usage of it's tones in composition.--Roivas 22:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine! It's badly written, like most of the sources we examine here. I disagree about the interpretation of current OCM's entry, but I don't have a problem with re-allocating it, as I have said.
– Noetica♬ Talk 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What is all this supposed to mean for the rest of Wikipedia? Walter Piston's approach is best, I think. He seems to avoid using the term "diatonic" whenever possible.--Roivas 22:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing is obvious: there certainly are big implications for other Wikipedia music articles. Wahoofive too has said it would be best to avoid use of these contested terms where possible. I tend to agree, though there's no way we can always achieve that – and it would be pusillanimous and artificial to tiptoe around use of certain terms just because their meanings have grown muddy. These are, after all, important terms currently and historically. But let's focus on getting things clear and consensual in this article first, yes? Then we can more lucidly address that broader question.
– Noetica♬ Talk 23:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common practice period

Why do we refer to this so often? Most of the ideas expressed apply to other periods as well (provided we actually mention the other diatonic modes). The only thing that doesn't seem to fit is the 14th century coloured notation (which is very clearly noted as an exception). - Rainwarrior 16:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I hope most of us realize that we're no longer in the Common Practice period.--Roivas 17:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rainwarrior, as the text now stands, that cromatico usage is not so clearly marked as an exception.
Common practice? As I have explained before, the main original motivation for this article was to clear up widespread failures to communicate clearly using these terms in respect of common practice. Of course the terms originated before that period, and have always been used in confusing ways. The history of music is littered with instances of muddled terminology, and the pair diatonic–chromatic is prominent in that whole sorry saga. And of course this article has to address all relevant periods and usages. There are several other usages that I am holding back from including in the article, for now. By all means, let's put in everything that can help clarify terms – in their own right, and for other Wikipedia articles, and for the increasing number of writers (in the popular media and beyond) who cite Wikipedia as an authority. But let's all work together to keep it orderly and readable.
Roivas, I'm confident that we all know that the dates of the Common Practice Period are from about 1600 to about 1900 (or 1910, as some prefer to say), and also that such dates are always pretty arbitrary. I'm confident also that we all appreciate the hold that "common practice" has over popular music and much other music, beyond hardcore 20C and current "art music". And theory that applies most aptly to "common practice" is still the basis of a huge amount of musicology and musical pedagogy. Hence the importance of getting things right, as this article strives to do.
– Noetica♬ Talk 00:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of Diatonic

We've listed "through the tones" and "stretched out" as differing etymologies for the word diatonic. This I think is misleading as it is because "tone" itself comes from "stretched", refering to stretched strings (see the etmological definition at dictionary.com). Thus the definition "through the tones" isn't exactly opposed to the latter meaning. - Rainwarrior 16:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rainwarrior, I appreciate your concern about the etymological information as I have expanded it. Having looked into the matter at some length, though, I find that many of the relevant terms are confused, and have been since antiquity. Even more in Medieval times. Yes, clearly tonos (from the verb teinein "to stretch") itself means "stretched" (as in English "muscle tone", and less directly such words as "tetanus"). But that doesn't help much, in the end. For one thing, the word in Greek musical theory could mean, as in English and other modern European languages, both a single note (from a stretched string, originally, we may presume) and the interval of a tone. Now, we could look at the relative frequencies of occurrence of relevant words in Greek (in the different senses), and their use by various authors at various dates. The key word tonos came quite late in the sense of an interval, and this usage is so rare that Liddell and Scott's exhaustive lexicon appears not even to record it; and we could look at each of teinein, diatonos, the very rare diatonikos, and diateinein. It is so far unsettled how the notion of stretching enters into the formation of the word "diatonic" in "diatonic genus", etc. It could be simply the "intervallic" stretch between the two notes of the interval of a tone (so that tonos is then available as a "pre-formed" element in word-formation, as in OED); or, more likely from the weight of all considerations, it could mean that the pitches are distributed (stretched out) most equally: no interval greater than a tone (as in the other two genera), none less than a semitone (as in the enharmonic genus).
Original research is not acceptable, and for that reason I refer only to easily accessible published sources in the note on etymology, but they plainly disagree. Many cite one or the other etymology as if it were uncontroversial. This is a mistake, and such dogmatic acceptance just continues the difficulties with the terms that we deal with in this article.
– Noetica♬ Talk 22:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lassus

Re:

For instance Orlando Lasso's Prophetiae Sibyllarum opens with a prologue proclaiming, "these chromatic songs (Carmina chromatico), heard in modulation, in which the mysteries of the Sibyls are sung, intrepidly," which here takes its modern meaning referring to the extremely chromatic nature of the work.

The word "chromatic" near the end is kind of self-referential. Could we say "...referring to its extensive use of accidentals" or "of half steps" or "of parts of the chromatic scale?" I don't know the work myself, so I don't know what makes it seem chromatic in the modern sense. In fact, it's not clear to me that the meaning of the word has changed -- the Greeks called one tetrachord "chromatic" because it had consecutive half steps, essentially the same meaning as today. It's "diatonic" that has changed, and only to mean something like "tonal" or "common-practice harmony".

It would be great to find a reference to the word "diatonic" from that period as well. What about the Jeppeson reference? Plus, we should rename that section since Lassus isn't remotely considered medieval. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeppesen is very strict about the term in his book about the music of Palestrina. I'll add a section about it some time next week.
Yeah. The 16th century composers shouldn't be mistaken for "Medieval Composers."
So the "Common Practice" usage and lexicon mistakes aren't so dominating, we should clarify the historical basis of "Diatonic."
The words "tonal" and "diatonic" have obviously been confused. I believe we can make this clear by citing its clearer meaning before (and possibly after) the Common Practice period. I know that Schoenberg is after the Common Practice period. I'll move it later when we have a home for it.--Roivas 17:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A section on the Renaissance period should be added after the Medieval section.--Roivas 17:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that Medieval and Renaissance practices should not simply be dealt with together. More needs to be done on the earlier uses of the terms diatonic and chromatic. But I'm wondering what Roivas means by "lexicon mistakes". Is this to do with the etymological note (in which case see my long comment above, in answer to Rainwarrior), or something else? Of course I agree that we should "clarify the historical basis of" the uses of the term diatonic. This has to be done in several ways, some of them going right back to Greek theory. And some of the explanation has to be more than cursory. The really hard part is to keep things orderly and understandable.

Wahoofive, the Jeppesen reference is fine, and could be used. There are innumerable references that would do to establish the basic earlier senses of the term diatonic. But let's not put any of them in the list of sources that deals with common-practice usages – the ones that are most confused of all, and cause most difficulty in Wikipedia.

And Wahoofive, I see what you mean about self-reference with the Lassus material. (I think it's great to have that in the article, by the way.) This might still need some polishing. The note I add quoting New Grove is instructive, isn't it? Perhaps confining such important technical detail to notes will help the flow of things, and keep things useful to the more general reader seeking general guidance about the use of the terms.

– Noetica♬ Talk 22:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But I'm wondering what Roivas means by "lexicon mistakes"
The careless blurring of meanings as regards "Diatonic."--Roivas 23:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see. Just the general blurrings and ambiguities that we've been addressing all along. Good! – Noetica♬ Talk 23:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering about your note about "Carmina chromatica". Every source I've seen for this work has used "chromatico", and I'm pretty sure that's what was in its original publication. Regardless of whether or not it is bad latin, isn't it still the word that Lasso wrote? - Rainwarrior 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, Rainwarrior. A rough Google search shows much more for Carmina chromatico than for Carmina chromatica. It is plausible that Lassus himself got the Latin wrong, perhaps just as a slip of the quill. Still, New Grove has one mention only, and that gives the correct Latin form. In any case things are kept informative and neat by sticking to chromatic songs in the text, and bundling the rest into the endnotes.
– Noetica♬ Talk 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Rainwarrior's new version of the passage on Lassus reads:

...which here takes its modern meaning referring to the frequent change of key and use of chromatic intervals in the work.

I hate to be a pedant here, but we've nowhere else defined chromatic as having to do with "frequent changes of key" (music of the Renaissance is arguably never in a key anyway) and the phrase "chromatic intervals" has only compounded the problem. Furthermore, I'm still not convinced that the "modern meaning" of chromatic is fundamentally different from its tetrachord meaning, other than extending to a 12-note scale. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well Wahoofive, as I see it the problems with the term chromatic are linked to the many problems with diatonic, though they may be fewer. For both terms, modern uses are outlandishly muddled. It seems certain that chromatic when applied to a passage or a whole piece of common practice music can indeed suggest (melodic) use of "chromatic intervals" (what do you take them to be, by the way?) and frequent "chromatic" modulations, often to "remote" keys, and often using "chromatic" chords to effect the transition. Would you like me to try to convince you?
– Noetica♬ Talk 22:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe there's a better way to properly describe it. I didn't want to make it too verbose, and there's an accuracy/concinnity tradeoff. In the Prophetiae Sibyllarum you do have some use of augmented unisons, but I that's not why it was called "chromatic"; the augmented unisons are a consequence of the chromaticism, rather than the means. They arise from the modulations which constantly occur throughout the work, which are chromatic because they use chords which are made up of pitches that do not belong to the current mode/key (whatever the appropriate term is). - Rainwarrior 02:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sure, Rainwarrior. Word it differently somehow, I say. Let's keep it tight and clean. We continue to see how hard that is to do, I think. Meanwhile, I am delighted to have discovered one other person capable of deploying the term concinnity elegantly and accurately (in a word, capable of using it concinnously).
– Noetica♬ Talk 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving at other pages, and diversion of discussion to here

I have now archived all discussion at Talk:Interval (music), Talk:Diatonic scale, and Talk:Diminished seventh. Editors may wish to mine those archives for citations and discussion that can be useful to us here. I have executed this rather radical archiving partly in order to leave unruly and unedifying disputes behind, so that we can more easily work collegially on the present article. – Noetica♬ Talk 02:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/a/Talk%7EDiatonic_and_chromatic_3a2f.html"